Perfect Dark 0- almost as good as GoW

[Acert93]

Uh, dude, I was having a bit of fun. Is fun not allowed on this board? These ARE games we're talking about, right? NOT life and death?

Ok, if you are just having some fun... then deal with the facts. You made two claims and I countered them.

1. Many PS2 games chugged too, so that dismisses your first point completely.

2. Every launch has rushed titles. The fact Sony did not show one playable game for the PS3 at E3 yet will be launching within 6 months after the Xbox 360 launch indicates there will be some rushed titles.

Heck, even no launch titles get rushed.

So using your metric I could reverse your statements "PS2 games chugged and they did not look half as good as Xbox games" or whatever. I cease to see how that is profitble discussion. Fun for you? Maybe? Making made up comments because you find it fun when all it does is invite trolling? No.

 

[_phil_]

P.P.S. If most 360 games, especially the racers, launch at 30hz, and "rushed launch titles" and "no dev kits" are the reasons for that, then I find that disappointing. Take the time to do it right, MS - or learn to get your **** together earlier. I'm not going to buy your product just 'cause it's the first out of the gate... I'll only buy it if it lives up to my expectations for what real next-gen games ought to be.

Please . Do you not remember the japanese ps2 launch titles ?

Anyway the developers of full auto said it plays at 60fps already and will be 60fps at launch

Did you know that the full auto devs are the same that made the early XNA crash demo ?

 

[Kolgar]

Please . Do you not remember the japanese ps2 launch titles ?

Yes, and Ridge Racer V still ran at 60fps.

 

[jvd]

Please . Do you not remember the japanese ps2 launch titles ?

Yes, and Ridge Racer V still ran at 60fps.

and looked horrible and had horrible jaggies , tekken tag looked bad and that flickering and jaggies . all looked worse than the dreamcast games out at the time

 

[Kolgar]

1. Many PS2 games chugged too, so that dismisses your first point completely.

I was thinking about games like PGR2. The first PGR came in at 60fps, the second at 30. This gives the impression that MS was encouraging devs to pump up the eye candy to help Xbox live up to the company's claims of being "three times the power of PS2."

Hey, I don't like it, but it makes sense when you're getting your butt kicked in sales.

Besides, PS2 games chugged because the hardware was limited, certainly compared to Xbox. I think, and others will agree, that a 30hz racer on Xbox, when GT3 and 4 run at 60hz on PS2, is a little hard to swallow.

2. Every launch has rushed titles. The fact Sony did not show one playable game for the PS3 at E3 yet will be launching within 6 months after the Xbox 360 launch indicates there will be some rushed titles.

Of course, I agree that every new platform has its share of rushed titles. I just get the feeling that Microsoft is rushing this platform to market, and unfortunately, it's possible that this launch may include more rushed software than most.

I cease to see how that is profitble discussion. Fun for you? Maybe? Making made up comments because you find it fun when all it does is invite trolling? No.

Feel free to modulate me when you become a mod. Until then, try not to be so damn arrogant, Acert.

You're a bright guy, and I'd like to get along with you. I just think sometimes you take things too seriously and come across as a bit of a know-it-all.

Peace.

 

[Kolgar]

Please . Do you not remember the japanese ps2 launch titles ?

Yes, and Ridge Racer V still ran at 60fps.

and looked horrible and had horrible jaggies , tekken tag looked bad and that flickering and jaggies . all looked worse than the dreamcast games out at the time

Well, I think we all realize that PS2's lack of hard-wired antialiasing was a mistake. It's a problem that plagues PS2 to this day.

Hardware limitations aside, I'm just pointing out that the game IS 60fps.

 

[Acert93]

Feel free to modulate me when you become a mod. Until then, try not to be so damn arrogant, Acert.

I am not trying to mod anyone. I think you have worthwhile posts and I like hearing what you have to say. But I felt your above post was unfair (and gave some reasons) and thought they would get us back to the sniping that goes on so often in a console forum.

You are smart enough to engage a topic and discuss it intelligently and to prove your point; I just felt feeding the Xbox trolls with comments like the Xbox did half the frame rate to look as 2x good as the PS2 was just inflamatory. I do not think I was being arrogent or a know it all by noting that. I just did not want a thread to break down.

If I thought you were a troll I would not have said anything. You are better than the Xbox trolls so I was just trying to help. No offense intended.

1. Many PS2 games chugged too, so that dismisses your first point completely.

I was thinking about games like PGR2. The first PGR came in at 60fps, the second at 30. This gives the impression that MS was encouraging devs to pump up the eye candy to help Xbox live up to the company's claims of being "three times the power of PS2."

I am not sure we can know that. Plenty of PS2 games chug--we could just reverse the table and say Sony asked PS2 devs to cut framerate in favor of details.

Or we could just say Halo 2 and GTA:SA chugged, but Halo 2 looked better. It would be tit for tat... I think it comes down to developers, artistic skill, and budget. That is why GT4 owns every car racing game on the PS2 and probably on every car game in visuals on every console (or at least close). The disparity between GT4 compared to other PS2 games is pretty large in of itself.

Sadly a good portion of games on both platforms chug. To say one camp is lowering framerates to best the other I think misses the forest for the trees. But that would be my impression.

 

[AlNom]

I was thinking about games like PGR2. The first PGR came in at 60fps, the second at 30. This gives the impression that MS was encouraging devs to pump up the eye candy to help Xbox live up to the company's claims of being "three times the power of PS2."

According to devs at Bizarre Creation's forums, they didn't have enough time to optimize to get the game running at 60fps.

 

[Farid]

Well, I think we all realize that PS2's lack of hard-wired antialiasing was a mistake. It's a problem that plagues PS2 to this day.

Anti-aliasing is not the PS2 IQ main problem, at all.

The lack of a proper, hardware, deflickering filter, the brocken implementation of mipmapping in the GS, and finally the outlandish architecture that forced the developers, at first, to use filed-rendering instead of full frame back-buffers explains the shimmering mess that were some of the launch titles.

 

[Kolgar]

Acert93: 10-4 on the first part of your post. Thanks for understanding.

Sadly a good portion of games on both platforms chug. To say one camp is lowering framerates to best the other I think misses the forest for the trees. But that would be my impression.

It's something we may never know for sure, but I am of the opinion that, as a relative newcomer trying its best to usurp Sony, Microsoft may indeed have encouraged devs to sacrifice speed for visuals in certain high-profile games like PGR2.

After all, one of the company's biggest selling points for Xbox was its hardware power. Once you claim your system is three times the power of another, you have to do everything in your power to make that difference apparent. Halving the frame rate certainly helps, especially in still screens.

I have no proof, and I'm not claiming it to be true. I'm just saying it might be true. Hell, if I were in Microsoft's position, I'd certainly consider it. You need every weapon you can get when you're trying to dislodge such an entrenched market leader.

 

[Pozer]

Acert93: 10-4 on the first part of your post. Thanks for understanding.

Sadly a good portion of games on both platforms chug. To say one camp is lowering framerates to best the other I think misses the forest for the trees. But that would be my impression.

It's something we may never know for sure, but I am of the opinion that, as a relative newcomer trying its best to usurp Sony, Microsoft may indeed have encouraged devs to sacrifice speed for visuals in certain high-profile games like PGR2.

After all, one of the company's biggest selling points for Xbox was its hardware power. Once you claim your system is three times the power of another, you have to do everything in your power to make that difference apparent. Halving the frame rate certainly helps, especially in still screens.

I have no proof, and I'm not claiming it to be true. I'm just saying it might be true. Hell, if I were in Microsoft's position, I'd certainly consider it. You need every weapon you can get when you're trying to dislodge such an entrenched market leader.

I think your missing the point. The xbox is more powerful than the ps2. Not becasue it was marketed that way, but becasue it has twice the memory and more powerful GPU that can perform more 3d effects in hardware with less of a penalty than the ps2. Thats because the xbox came out after the ps2. This isn't marketing claim it's a fact. Not 3x as powerful, more like 1.5x depending on the situation. The xbox isn't getting this power by halfing its frame rate on games to show more eye candy.

Saying game X runs at 60fps on the ps2 and game Y runs at 30fps on the xbox means nothing, casue game X could probably run at 90 on the xbox and game Y would probably run at 15 on the ps2.

 

[Phil]

No I think you Pozer are missing the point that this should not be about hardware comparisons but that for games in certain genres, we should have a targeted framerate by default. On PS2 this trend started (maybe even on Dreamcast) and many games starting at launch were running at 60Hz to boot, most of them even without any slowdowns that would put that framerate in question. Up to this day, a majority of PS2's flagship titles run at 60Hz. The graphics might be worse than most/some/few Xbox games outthere - the fact still remains that 60Hz is a nice feature, one that should be the default in certain genres.

Why Microsoft or Xbox developers changed this, who knows? It does point towards that having "better graphics and IQ" was a priority, possibly to set themselves apart from many good looking PS2 titles. I find it disappointing that this trend might continue into next generation though. If 30Hz continues to be a priority found on Xbox360, I can guarantee you that I for one won't be buying one for sure.

 

[Pozer]

No I think you Pozer are missing the point that this should not be about hardware comparisons but that for games in certain genres, we should have a targeted framerate by default. On PS2 this trend started (maybe even on Dreamcast) and many games starting at launch were running at 60Hz to boot, most of them even without any slowdowns that would put that framerate in question. Up to this day, a majority of PS2's flagship titles run at 60Hz. The graphics might be worse than most/some/few Xbox games outthere - the fact still remains that 60Hz is a nice feature, one that should be the default in certain genres.

Why Microsoft or Xbox developers changed this, who knows? It does point towards that having "better graphics and IQ" was a priority, possibly to set themselves apart from many good looking PS2 titles. I find it disappointing that this trend might continue into next generation though. If 30Hz continues to be a priority found on Xbox360, I can guarantee you that I for one won't be buying one for sure.

This is way off topic, but Jack Burton says what the hell. First off I'd rather a game have high res textures and look good running at a locked 30fps than a game have low res textures and look bland (ala Katarmi Damacy) and be running at 60fps. Secondly nobody knows what fps most console games run at except for the few rare exceptions where devs have stated them (ie. pgr2, gt4, etc.) and I doubt you have a ps2, xbox, and dreamcast development kits to throw into debug mode.

 

[Phil]

This is way off topic, but Jack Burton says what the hell. First off I'd rather a game have high res textures and look good running at a locked 30fps than a game have low res textures and look bland (ala Katarmi Damacy) and be running at 60fps.

Where should developers draw the line? Framerate and visuals will always be competing for resources - if better visuals is all that's important to you, why not ultimately go for 15fps? Or even less? Why not go back to pre-rendered backgrounds? Ever played Myst? In your opinion, maybe 30Hz is enough, but the matter of fact is, 60Hz is where a point of fluent movement of dimishing returns is reached. If that's the point in which games have reached the same sense of speed and life-like representation of movement, why not strive to aim for that framerate?

The fact is, framerate differences are noticable and the 60Hz framerate will always be the benchmark. It makes sense to adopt this framerate is games of certain genres which especially require a lot of visual feedback (precision) and fluent movement. As already noted multiple times througout this thread by me and others, racers and first-person-shooters are one of them. Personally, any game regardless if 1st or 3rd persion view should go for the 60Hz framerate. The only exceptions I can think of are RPGs (especially turned-based ones, a la final fantasy) and strategy games. I'm sure there are more, but that's all I can think of. In all other genres, 60 Hz is very nice feature: no motion sickness, fluent animation, fluent movement of camera and characters, more [visual] feedback and immersion (it feels more 'real').

As visuals and resolutions will improve significantly with next generation, fluent animation and movement will be even more important. Given that next generation hardware is capable of much better visuals, I would think it's about time developers strive for that 60Hz in games. Low res textures etc shouldn't be an issue, especially not if you're used to current gen visuals. Again I ask - why draw the line at 30Hz if 60Hz is the point of dimishing returns and offers so much more immersion [at least in games of genres that require it]?

Secondly nobody knows what fps most console games run at except for the few rare exceptions where devs have stated them (ie. pgr2, gt4, etc.) and I doubt you have a ps2, xbox, and dreamcast development kits to throw into debug mode.

Seriously, if you think development kits are necessary to notice the different between 30 and 60Hz, with all due respect, I don't think you're one to quite understand what this is all about. In other words, I envy you - but I can tell you that to me at least, in games of those certain genres, it is quite noticable which do and which don't. You might also want to read up on that 60Hz and the point in which it reaches the point of dimishing returns (a point in which the framerate is so fluent that it's as good as it gets). And simply because YOU don't care - doesn't mean there aren't others that do. In fact, I'd argue that most people do notice the difference but the uninformed might not put it down to framerate. It's a bit like music and movies - why go for the better formats, better quality if the majority aren't quality obsessed? The answer therein lies that as technology progresses, expecations rise. Framerate is one of them - and given it's a small price to pay [given the significant boost next gen hardware will deliver regardless of framerate], it's one that shouldn't be ignored.

BTW; Of course I am assuming that the targed for any game is a constant framerate, not one that is dictated by slowdowns. The point is, constant 60Hz will always be superior to constant 30Hz.

 

[Pozer]

I can see where you're coming. You see this as devs making prettier pictures but at the expense of painting less of them. I think you're right to a certain degree. It maybe more apparent now because everyone expects normal maps and bump mapping, fancy lights and people (especially this board) crying about getting cut on jaggies. Also ps2/xbox/gc are nearly 4-5 years old but they still have to compete against each other, PC's, and the games that were released in 2001. People expect consoles games to improve over the generation and keep getting better looking.

Personally the only time I notice fps is when they dip down to about 15 or fluctuate constantly. If a game locks at 30 its more pleasant than if it jumps from 25-60 for me. (atleast on the pc side) I don't play racing games though, I spend enough time on my commute to work to find driving games fun. Some of my favorite games this gen had awful frame rates. GTA:vc on the ps2 felt like a solid 15 fps. Ghost Recon 2 on the xbox felt like 20fps. Riddick felt like 25 but it was amazing. Goldeneye/perfect dark on the n64 felt like 10fps but I loved them. I guess 60fps is not a pet peeve for me.

 

[Kolgar]

Phil, you got it.

Pozer, I know Xbox is more powerful than PS2. But perhaps not by so much that its noticeable enough to Joe Average Consumer. So what to do? Microsoft and devs could lower Xbox frame rates to 30hz to double the visual detail... this looks great in still screens (gaming mags, back of game boxes) and even in game, it helps Xbox games look "better" than comparable PS2 titles running at 60fps.

I think Microsoft wrote checks (i.e., made claims) the Xbox hardware couldn't necessarily cash, so halving the frame rate is an easy way to give those Xbox titles extra detail people would expect of a more powerful system.

Which may be OK with Joe Average Consumer, but I'm with Phil. Generally, I think 60hz > 30hz, especially in racers and shooters.

 

[jvd]

There are a ton of ps2 games out there at 30fps . There are some on the xbox also and in the future there will be games that run at 30fps on the x360 and ps3

 

[Kolgar]

There are a ton of ps2 games out there at 30fps . There are some on the xbox also and in the future there will be games that run at 30fps on the x360 and ps3

This is true. But as Phil says, as technology progresses, expectations rise.

I'm hoping 30hz games will begin to go away next generation, and especially the generation after that.

 

[jvd]

I don't think they will ever go away . There will allways be those games that push the limits of graphics and are unable to keep the framerates up and as we move further and expect more done per frame (Shaders , fsaa , hdr , incrased res and whatever ) the more we will be a slave to lower refresh rates and fps

 

[Pozer]

Phil, you got it.

Pozer, I know Xbox is more powerful than PS2. But perhaps not by so much that its noticeable enough to Joe Average Consumer. So what to do? Microsoft and devs could lower Xbox frame rates to 30hz to double the visual detail... this looks great in still screens (gaming mags, back of game boxes) and even in game, it helps Xbox games look "better" than comparable PS2 titles running at 60fps.

I think Microsoft wrote checks (i.e., made claims) the Xbox hardware couldn't necessarily cash, so halving the frame rate is an easy way to give those Xbox titles extra detail people would expect of a more powerful system.

Which may be OK with Joe Average Consumer, but I'm with Phil. Generally, I think 60hz > 30hz, especially in racers and shooters.

I agree, I never thought the xbox was a huge jump over the ps2 and is almost almost unnoticeable by average gamers. They same I suspect will be true for the xbxo360 and ps3 sicne they will be launching even closer.

To be overly general you could say the ps2 is bottlenecked by weak GPU but has a very powerful CPU. That could be why lots of games are ugly but have some 'oomph' behind them. On the other hand the xbox is opposite, it has a much more powerful GPU but hurts in the CPU department.

But to generalize and say most xbox games only look better cause they run at 30fps and the most ps2 games are uglier cause they they run at 60fps is incorrect. If a ps2 dev could match the 'cleaness' of xbox quality gfx I'm sure they would make the tradeoff. because the average gamer can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60 fps either.