[pc999]

And Perfect Dark Zero looked incredible. Incredible. It looked nearly as good as Gears of War, which, in my humble opinion is the best looking 360 game of the show so far (I saw that running in realtime too). So, simply put, Perfect Dark Zero shocked me.

http://xbox360.ign.com/articles/616/616196p1.html



Need to metion that PD is my all time favorite game...


Meybe in 2 days they say that they wil add 1 more CPU , a GPU , a PPU and 512mg...

[Phil]

Originally Posted by cube.ign.com

Rare feels comfortable getting its game to run at 30 FPS when all is said and done.

I'd be seriously pissed as a Xbox customer if the 30 Hz trend is set to continue into next generation. For gods sake, this is a first person shooter, not a card game and it's not Myst either.



(and before anyone calls me biased or whatever, the same holds damn well true for any other fast paced game regardless of the platform; that means it also includes Killzone, regardless how it looks)

[Pozer]

Gamespot said it was stunning also. I don't mind 30fps so long as its a rock solid 30fps. Theres a big difference between a bad 30fps and a good 30fps.

[Vaan]

Yeah, there's a huge difference. But there's some genres that deserves something better than 30fps.


When you are turning hard on forza, it sucks, when you are getting attacked at Doom 3 at 30fps and move quickly, it sucks.

[DigitalSoul]

We can't doubt Rare any more, sounds like they have brought the game up to snap

[Riddlewire]

I consider high frame rates to be FAR more important to an enjoyable gaming experience than AA or high resolutions. Microsoft (and I suppose Sony and Nintendo) have all sorts of requirements for games appearing on their systems, like minimum resolutions, HUD placement, button consistency, etc. I seriously wish they would require that all games be running at 60fps average, with a minimum dip to no less than 30fps.
I know this isn't ever going to happen, but it would certainly make all the games better.

[Inane_Dork]

Oh boy. 30 fps hating comes out again.

Anyway, I'm really relieved that the game doesn't thoroughly suck. This is a launch game (or close) so I can accept things like 30 fps easily as long as it's not jumpy.

[BigGamer X]

If they aren't complaining about 30fps, then they are complaining (@60fps) about the graphics... Pretty much anything but racers get by just fine with 30 fps, and even for racers it's not that bad if it's a LOCKED 30 fps.

[pegisys]

why on the g4 show they are saying they weren't showing PDZ is it behind closed doors

[Blazkowicz]

it would be an improvement other the original Perfect Dark. I didn't play it much, as it is more in the 10-15fps

[pc999]

Nice info

http://www.xbox.com/en-US/perfectdarkzero/default.htm

[Acert93]

Originally Posted by pegisys

why on the g4 show they are saying they weren't showing PDZ is it behind closed doors

Because maybe G4 is a joke?

No offense, but G4 was a joke befor the show, they are a joke now, and will be a joke later. If IGN is actually seeing it I guess that means G4 was not invited to the show Tells you a bit about where G4 stands

Sorry, had to get the G4 bug out

[Joe DeFuria]

Speaking of GoW:

http://www.gamespot.com/x360/action/...w_6125579.html

A versus multiplayer mode is planned, but Epic was mum with the details. However, we did learn that cooperative gameplay would be a significant feature in the title--we were told that a second player would be able to bust into the single-player game at any time, either by picking up a second controller or even via Xbox Live. When asked for specifics about the number of co-op players the game would support, Bleszinski noted that the company was considering allowing up to four players at a time.

YES!!

[Acert93]

Oh yeah... that is the stuff I have been waiting to hear at E3. With online a basic feature this gen hopefully we see a LOT more of that. The fact Gears is a great looking title is an extra plus. Now if it only plays well (Epic has a real hit and miss record)...

[Dr Evil]

Originally Posted by Phil

I'd be seriously pissed as a Xbox customer if the 30 Hz trend is set to continue into next generation. For gods sake, this is a first person shooter, not a card game and it's not Myst either.

Well I think Halo's are 30fps, and I think on this gen they are unrivaled in quality and are much more enjoyable than Timesplitters for example. But I must admit now, that after playing Forza for a while the 30fps in that game and in racing games in general is starting to annoy me, but for fps 30fps in enough.

[satriales]

quick question:

If a game (PDZ for example) runs at 30fps in high definition is it likely that it would run faster on a normal (normal definition) tv, or would it stll be 30fps even at a lower resolution?

[Phil]

Actually, TimeSplitters 1 is superior (control mechanics and motion) to any first person shooter on any console platform thanks to the spot on controls and the high framerate. Halo is slow, unresponsive, which probably is fine given its gameplay - but for a fast paced action shooter? No thanks. Despite the same framerate of TS2, the TS1 is still better thanks to the faster controls.


Anyway, I'm not going to argue this anymore. If you're happy with 30 Hz framerate in most of your games fine. Personally, I find it worrying that the first flagship title by a MS owned developer is already setting a trend for 30 Hz.

[clem64]

Originally Posted by Phil

I'd be seriously pissed as a Xbox customer if the 30 Hz trend is set to continue into next generation. For gods sake, this is a first person shooter, not a card game and it's not Myst either.

oh please. 30 and 60fps games have been around for 20 years and a 30fps framerate has never prevented any games from getting high scores and/or being enjoyable. Having a stable framerate is way more important then having the game blazzing at 60hz. GT2 on PSone was sub 30 and it didn't make the game any less enjoyable. Halo 1 was around 25-30 and it's now considered a classic. Developers will always wrestle with framerates when trying to balance gameplay and graphics. You think the "30hz trend" won't be present on PS3?

edit: btw, TS1 also had an unstable framerate. It went back and forth between 30 and 60 pretty often. To me an unstable 30-60 framerate is a lot worse then a stable 30fps one.

[MechanizedDeath]

When asked about the overwhelming suckiness of PDZ, J Allard hmmed and hawed and sidestepped before repeatedly playing the Halo card. I don't know if this is money hat talk or what, but if PDZ is indeed looking "incredible", someone needs to let Mr. Allard know. Because it seems like he's still embarassed to talk about it. PEACE.

EDIT: This is from G4 tonight btw.

[Phil]

Originally Posted by clem64

30 and 60fps games have been around for 20 years

Great, so we're back in the 90ties.

Anyway, I think you should re-read again what I said: I never said games won't be fun - what I am saying is that this is next generation and with that, consumer expectations rise. Just as we want to see better graphics, we also want to see better animation, more colours and a minumum framerate of 60 Hz which should be a standard already in certain genres.

I was mostly put off by Xbox because most of the games that interested me (mostly flagship titles) run at no more than 30 Hz. These were Halo 1, 2, PGR2, Apex, Forza and a few others. I don't expect 60 Hz in all games of all genres (i.e. I don't find it necessary for RPGs and slower paced games), but especially racing games and first person shooters that benefit from it should have it.

That a first party effort is aiming for 30 Hz in a flagship title, a first person shooter, is an utter disappointment, no matter how you look at it. I'd rather have half the detail and double the framerate. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think PDZ is aiming much further than TimeSplitters type of gameplay... (Deathmatches, many players, fast paced action)?


BTW; Most of my games that I own which for the most part are all flagship titles all run at 60 Hz - and this on current generation hardware (includes 5 launch games as well that run at that framerate). And since you brought up Sony, I'm very glad to see that 60 Hz was mentioned on their slides as a target. That's what I want - and you'll see me bitching about 30 Hz titles on that platform as well if the game is either a racer or a first person shooter.

[Supasso]

Originally Posted by clem64

oh please. 30 and 60fps games have been around for 20 years and a 30fps framerate has never prevented any games from getting high scores and/or being enjoyable. Having a stable framerate is way more important then having the game blazzing at 60hz. GT2 on PSone was sub 30 and it didn't make the game any less enjoyable. Halo 1 was around 25-30 and it's now considered a classic. Developers will always wrestle with framerates when trying to balance gameplay and graphics. You think the "30hz trend" won't be present on PS3?

edit: btw, TS1 also had an unstable framerate. It went back and forth between 30 and 60 pretty often. To me an unstable 30-60 framerate is a lot worse then a stable 30fps one.

Oh come on. Yes, 30 fps games have been around forever, and they are indeed playable, but the same can be said for low-res games. Would it be acceptable if the next gen games locked at 640 * 480? To me, fast frame rate is like like high resolution, and they what the next gen is all about.

[clem64]

Originally Posted by Phil

Great, so we're back in the 90ties.

Anyway, I think you should re-read again what I said: I never said games won't be fun - what I am saying is that this is next generation and with that, consumer expectations rise. Just as we want to see better graphics, we also want to see better animation, more colours and a minumum framerate of 60 Hz which should be a standard already in certain genres..

Excuse me... "we"? Whenever I talk to friends of mine about games or when I visit web boards, I most often hear about wanting better graphics, more of this, more of that but "a minimun of 60hz"? I don't hear that very often.

Besides, I also don't believe 60hz will ever be a standard. Developers will always try to put as much on screen as they possibly can while maintaining an acceptable framerate, regardless of how much power they have at their disposal.

I was mostly put off by Xbox because most of the games that interested me (mostly flagship titles) run at no more than 30 Hz..

I'm surprised to hear that. Too bad.

That a first party effort is aiming for 30 Hz in a flagship title, a first person shooter, is an utter disappointment, no matter how you look at it..

wtf? please tell me you're joking. From a "better graphics" standpoint you don't think some people would appreciate the tradeoff? What if the AI was so insane that it made the game 10x more fun but also run at 30hz, you don't think that'd be reason enough to aim for 30hz? Look at the reviews for Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Halo1 and 2... How do you suppose those reviewers were "looking at it" to give it such high scoring reviews. "Doesn't matter how fun those games are. They're 1rst party efforts and they're not running at 30 hz. It's a dissappointement"

I'd rather have half the detail and double the framerate. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think PDZ is aiming much further than TimeSplitters type of gameplay... (Deathmatches, many players, fast paced action)?


BTW; Most of my games that I own which for the most part are all flagship titles all run at 60 Hz - and this on current generation hardware (includes 5 launch games as well that run at that framerate).

And since you brought up Sony, I'm very glad to see that 60 Hz was mentioned on their slides as a target. That's what I want - and you'll see me bitching about 30 Hz titles on that platform as well if the game is either a racer or a first person shooter.

That's fine. If you like 60hz games so much, It's your choice. I just don't see the logic behind that. What if Killzone ends up getting insane reviews, like mostly 9.9 and 10s, but runs at 30hz. Will you be hesitant to pick it up? It's an honest question. You don't see yourself enjoying a FPS or racer if it's sub 60hz?

[clem64]

Oh come on. Yes, 30 fps games have been around forever, and they are indeed playable, but the same can be said for low-res games. Would it be acceptable if the next gen games locked at 640 * 480? To me, fast frame rate is like like high resolution, and they what the next gen is all about.

I can see your point. Can't say I agree. To me, level of detail, IQ, as well as resolution is something that I expect from next generation machines. But I see framerate as seperate from that. I would argue that gamers want mostly better graphics, better IQ and higher resolution, but not necessarily 60hz in every game. Maybe I'm wrong.

[Phil]

clem64,

I won't bother arguing this with you any longer since you obviously fail to realise that review scores and expected framerate (which goes hand in hand with graphics) are almost not related. Your example of a game with supposedly excellent AI forcing 30 Hz is amusing, but not quite from this world. Hint: Framerate is often a tradeoff related to visuals - not because of AI or any other reasons pulled out of thin air.

The amusing part is actually that Microsoft is pushing its console as the definite High-Definition generation console. What a shame that framerate isn't keeping up in the advancement for pixels and shading power*. Anyway, we'll just have disagree then. It's certainly a drawback for me and for the other Xbox consumers out there that do notice a difference, I hope PDZ isn't any indication of what is going to come.



* I'm aware that the tradeoff is up to each and every developer - but the point argued is that I was hoping that especially first party developers (regardless the platform) will set a benchmark that will grab other developers as well. If already developer(s) are competing for better visuals at 30fps now, why will anyone ever bother with 60fps later - especially if the percepted demands of most gamers are as quoted above "better graphics, better IQ and higher resolution"?

[Acert93]

Even if the PS3 GPU is 2x as powerful as the R500 we will still have the same issue. Developers choose to make that trade off. Some of it is art style, another is lack of optimization time, another is game genre, sometimes they overestimate their hardware and coding abilities, and sometimes it is just the realization that a 30FPS game looks better in still shots and that 2x the detail is often worth the 50% reduced framerate if only a small market of gamers (like Phil and me) really dislike it.

Funny you mentioned TS2--one of my fav games this gen. Very fast and smooth (unless you crank up the bots!)

I never see this issue going away. There are too many factors leading up to the frame rate being stable. But, as Phil is saying, SOME gamers are turned off by it. I do not see this as an R500 issue, but a general issue (like someone else noted, most people talk about the still shot eye candy and not how smooth it is.. too bad imo).

On a related note, Phil I am not sure we should shoot barbs at MS over this. If they are telling the truth, they are still on X800 video cards in dev units and unoptimized. I remember Halo getting a LOT better in framerate from E3 to launch. I have a hard time believing art direction can change (takes a ton of work to make, let alone totally change and then crunch for release) but framerate IS something that can be changed. The fact the lack luster Kameo struggles is more of an indication of early HW and backs this up too.