I think this argue was close to the my last post.You cannot compare 2 different games from different developers and expect tech parity. These misguided beliefs are what fuel the "lazy developer" comments.
I think this argue was close to the my last post.You cannot compare 2 different games from different developers and expect tech parity. These misguided beliefs are what fuel the "lazy developer" comments.
Grandmaster, did you compare both versions of AC1? If so, did you see any progress towards parity? It seems like a repeat of AC1's results.
Thanks for all of the comparisons.snip
Why cant they manage zero screen tearing & FPS which never dips below 55 ?
Did I just watch the same video? The video I saw had 0 screen tearing and the framerate stayed at 60 for the most part, dipping to 55.5 at it's lowest point (for a single frame).Why cant they manage zero screen tearing & FPS which never dips below 55 ?
I mean at its core its still a PS2 game hence the technology in the game is years old.
Battlefield Bad Company 2 BETA - PS3
avg:29.781 tear:11.791% min-max:26.0-30.0
http://zoome.jp/ps360/diary/463
Is it even possible to get an approximate framerate from a game trailer because of the compression artifacts?
The reason I ask is i just saw a trailer on TV of Rockstar's "Red Dead Redemption". The game did look good, but i noticed unsightly stuttering in the framerate.