Yea, I saw that video earlier and it just another example to highlight the really bad performance on show by Blizzard.
Current Generation Games Analysis Technical Discussion [2023] [XBSX|S, PS5, PC]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
snc
Veteran
majority of this time on ps5 is server connection
Counting the queue as part of the load time... stupidest thing I've seen all day.
I don't mean to be contrarian but, can the user interact with the game while waiting? It doesn't matter whether one chooses to count it or not as by definition, it's still loading. As we know, that can always be optimized and made faster so.....
You aren't always put into a queue when you load into the game. Sometimes you load straight in. The authentication servers for Diablo are just being hammered because of the number of players at launch.
No you can't interact with anything. The only thing you can do is cancel/exit. And yes it matters... it's not loading during that time, it's a queue... you're being told "you can't connect/load right now because we're full, you have to wait".. so that's not a measurement of loading, it's just a measurement of waiting.
There's a joke somehow
About PS5 no loading screens
But how do I write?
A haiku about PS5 banishing loading screens and replacing them with queue screens instead
By @see colon
Shouldn't the queue times be the same regardless of which version is being played? If queue times are included for both it makes it a fair comparison because the absolute numbers aren't as important as the delta between the two values. That's really what's being demonstrated in that video. And it isn't like Diablo 4 has the ability to play without connecting to a server.
I guess to make it more scientific there should be multiple tests and the average load+queue times should be compared, but I fail to see why queue times should be disregarded. They do add to the time a player waits to play, and I can't think of a time I felt better about a game making me wait to play because it was "queue time" and not data being moved from storage.
It changes the % differentials which could easily confuse a large portion of the consumers into thinking the loading improvement is smaller than it actually is.
So we should trim off the queue time and lead people to believe they will be playing instantly instead of in about a minute? Which one would be more confusing? It's less true that you will finish loading into a game instantly than it is that it will take about a minute.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure but depending on when you try to log in your queue time could be measured in seconds, 10's of seconds, minutes or 10's of minutes. All on the same machine.
That makes it virtually impossible to come up with a realistic and always consistent delta between measurements on the same machine much less different machines. Granted, if connecting to the same server within a very short amount of time the variation should be relatively small, but then again it's still possible for it to go from single digit seconds to 10's of seconds just logging into a character and then immediately logging out and back to another character.
The other day I logged in (just a few seconds to log in) went to the bathroom, got kicked out for being idle (the system more aggressively boots idle players if the servers start to get busy) and then had a queue time of over a minute when I got back.
Regards,
SB
They should just mention that server queue times are highly variable and will depend on blizzard as opposed to the console you are using.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Alternative measure loading times somewhere that doesn't have a queue. For example, loading into a dungeon (single party instance) or teleporting to a generally deserted teleport pad (lower chance of excessive number of players).
Server load will still affect your loading time to an extent but not nearly as much as logging into your character.
Regards,
SB
Server load will still affect your loading time to an extent but not nearly as much as logging into your character.
Regards,
SB
Xbox showcase was pretty interesting. Nothing particularly next gen looking but, it was good non the less. Hellblade 2 continues to get worse and worse with each showing. Don't know what it is about it but the downgrades are noticeable and evident. Forza looked very "gamey" and I think it has to do with the lighting. The cars also don't look like they fit cohesively in the environment while also simultaneously being with worst part of the games graphics. Finally, starfield looked vast but those character animations left a lot to be desired. The game also looked like it was struggling to maintain 30fps especially during combat. Either that or it was a really bad encoding of the video. All in all, still waiting for actual next-gen games to show up from a graphics/animation perspective.
Oh I know but, this looks worse than the "gameplay" they showed us last year. I do admire their ability to abusively deploy chromatic aberration. Its been a long time since i've seen it deployed so offensively.
My feeling too.
"Oh wow they're showing Fable! ... Oh, they're not showing Fable."
Avowed looked alright, and I'm hyped for the game given its pedigree, but I don't think it's going to screenshot war winner. I did come to love the way Fallout New Vegas looked though, inconsistencies and glitches be damned. (Edit same with Outer Worlds, loved it. My GotY.)
It's interesting how many games have effects that feel like they should be transparent but they are actually completely opaque. I guess we all know why.
Last edited:
- Status
Similar threads
