It's a sad state of affairs when you have to announce this as some great feature
SNES ran shit at 60FPS progressive
-actually snip-
[QUOTE=paul simon;49911408]-actually snip-[/QUOTE]
I think he meant that SNES (and NES) ran almost every single game at 60fps
[QUOTE=Dantz Bolrew;49911419]I think he meant that SNES (and NES) ran almost every single game at 60fps[/QUOTE]
I have no counter argument to that statement.
I'd love if someone compiled some actual framerate data for all / most SNES and NES games.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49911429]I have no counter argument to that statement.
I'd love if someone compiled some actual framerate data for all / most SNES and NES games.[/QUOTE]
SNES games weren't rendered in real time. They were sprites which could simply be loaded in the memory of the console and alternated between states. There were no calculations to be made, the processing power requiered wasn't that high. If any comparsion has to be made, Star Fox (which was rendered in real time) ran at 20ish fps.
If you MUST know, European SNES (and Genesis too I think) ran at 50fps because of PAL while NTSC SNES of the US and Japan ran at 60fps.
I hope they didn't tie the game logic to the framerate. While Dark Souls 2 on PC had 60fps support out of the box, [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkSouls2/comments/2517i8/durability_bug_is_linked_to_framerate/]the framerate is actually tied to a few gameplay mechanics and animations which caused weapon durability to degrade faster and enemies to attack faster as well.[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrlwnYkRMI[/media]
[quote]Ok, I've tried locking my framerate and guess what? I was right.
I've ran my test with 2 weapons and the 2 gave me almost the same answer.
My tools where:
Cheatengine, to monitor the exact values (forgive me)
MSI Afterburner, to lock my framerate
I've hitted 10 times my target for every case to make sure that I was having the same values. The dead body was a Hollow from the Fallen Giants Forest.
Test with a Drakekeeper's Sword +10 (70 durability):
Hitting a wall:
@60fps: 69.67999268 /70 (-0.32000732 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 69.67999268 /70 (-0.32000732 Dur/Hit)
Hitting a dead body:
@60fps: 67.19998932 /70 (-2.80001068 Dur/hit)
@30fps: 68.79999542 /70 (-1.20000458 Dur/Hit)
Difference of 1.6000061 Dur/Hit between 60fps and 30fps.
Test with a Mace +10 (60 Durability):
Hitting a wall:
@60fps: 59.68000031 /60 (-0.31999969 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 59.68000031 /60 (-0.31999969 Dur/Hit)
Hitting a dead body:
@60fps: 58.39999390 /60 (-1.6000061 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 59.19999695 /60 (-0.80000305 Dur/Hit)
Difference of 0.80000305 Dur/Hit between 60fps and 30fps.
You can redo the tests it if you want but make sure that you are doing it with steam offline or you might get a VAC Ban because of Cheatengine.
If FROM is willing to do something, a lazy fix could be to just divide by 2 the durability loss for weapons on PC. This way we will be able to have the same weapons durability than the console players.
(I know it's not a good solution but they are not going to re-code everything)
So... I've tested it on Stone soldiers and Ruins sentinels in the Drangleic Castle.
They are both 'fading' away when you kill them but here are the results:
My framerate was not as stable as before when i was not locking it at 30fps, hence the 3-4% difference
Test with a Drakekeeper's Sword +10 (70 durability):
Ruins Sentinel on fading animation:
@60fps: 68.239990235 /70 (-1.760009765 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 68.799995425 /70 (-1.200004575 Dur/Hit)
Difference of 0.56000519 Dur/Hit between 60fps and 30fps.
Stone Soldier on fading animation:
@60fps: 67.19998936 /70 (-2.80001064 Dur/Hit It's really eating your weapon)
@30fps: 68.07998658 /70 (-1.92001342 Dur/Hit)
Difference of 0.87999722 Dur/Hit between 60fps and 30fps.
Sent a mail to Namco: still waiting for an anwser.
Tweeted
to @JKartje, the Community Manager at Namco Bandai US:
"Thank you! I'll pass this along to From."
Here is another one with the halberd and wow...
Test with a Halberd (70 durability):
Hitting a Wall:
@60fps: 69.83999634 /70 (-0.16000366 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 69.83999634 /70 (-0.16000366 Dur/Hit)
Stone Soldier alive:
@60fps: 69.59999847 /70 (-0.40000153 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 69.59999847 /70 (-0.40000153 Dur/Hit)
Stone Soldier on fading animation:
@60fps: 61.03996277 /70 (-8.9600323 Dur/Hit)
@30fps: 66.15997315 /70 (-3.84002685 Dur/Hit)
Difference of 5,12000545 Dur/Hit between 60fps and 30fps.[/quote]
It's not so bad between 60fps vs 30fps, but for people playing above 60fps it pretty much breaks the gameplay.
[QUOTE=NachoPiggy;49911465]I hope they didn't tie the game logic to the framerate. While Dark Souls 2 on PC had 60fps support out of the box, [url=https://www.reddit.com/r/DarkSouls2/comments/2517i8/durability_bug_is_linked_to_framerate/]the framerate is actually tied to a few gameplay mechanics and animations which caused weapon durability to degrade faster and enemies to attack faster as well.[/url]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVrlwnYkRMI[/media]
It's not so bad between 60fps vs 30fps, but for people playing above 60fps it pretty much breaks the gameplay.[/QUOTE]
Didn't Fallout 4 have some problems like that? If you were playing at higher FPS, objects would fall faster and what not.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49911429]I have no counter argument to that statement.
I'd love if someone compiled some actual framerate data for all / most SNES and NES games.[/QUOTE]
There's not really anything to gather, it was just something you didn't think twice about back then. The only exception I can think of is Ghost n' Goblins for nes ran at 60 but rendered in 30 and that was because of bad coding.
Yeah that was fucking bullshit by definition
[media]https://youtu.be/mjpIXOA5Txk[/media]
Pay close attention to the durability bar
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49911472]Didn't Fallout 4 have some problems like that? If you were playing at higher FPS, objects would fall faster and what not.[/QUOTE]
Yeah the simulation speed and game logic of the game engine was tied to the framerate as well, it's been like that for all the Bethesda games since Oblivion and that branch of their Gamebryo engine. A lot of older games were like this back when CPUs were still standardized and had common speeds, as well as console games both past and present ones, since developers don't have to worry about a wide range of specifications. It's really bad and lazy programming nowadays though and I wish developers who are still used to programming with the framerate in mind would stop.
Seriously something like this shouldn't be happening at this day and age lol
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r4EHjFkVw-s[/media]
[media]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv6Ufgz47bY[/media]
[QUOTE=Ragekipz;49911444]SNES games weren't rendered in real time. They were sprites which could simply be loaded in the memory of the console and alternated between states. There were no calculations to be made, the processing power requiered wasn't that high. If any comparsion has to be made, Star Fox (which was rendered in real time) ran at 20ish fps.
If you MUST know, European SNES (and Genesis too I think) ran at 50fps because of PAL while NTSC SNES of the US and Japan ran at 60fps.[/QUOTE]
So I guess it's not really a good comparison then due to how framerates work on it
Still, I wish there was better availability on framerate data for console games.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49911381]It's a sad state of affairs when you have to announce this as some great feature
SNES ran shit at 60FPS progressive[/QUOTE]
It is a sad state of affairs, and it's made worse when retarded writers of game news sites *cough* PCGamesN find the need to write and spread rumours that games are locked to 30fps because someone chatted to a clueless support chat to find out details (or edited the webpage to stir shit).
I don't blame From Software or Namco for having to do this when shit sites report crap like that.
[QUOTE=PieClock;49911604]It is a sad state of affairs, and it's made worse when retarded writers of game news sites *cough* PCGamesN find the need to write and spread rumours that games are locked to 30fps because someone chatted to a clueless support chat to find out details (or edited the webpage to stir shit).
I don't blame From Software or Namco for having to do this when shit sites report crap like that.[/QUOTE]
Woah, slow down there killer. All it would've taken to avoid this huge kittenkaboodle would've been for them to have been forthright in the first place. They know it's a big deal and it's been a big deal since Dark Souls 1, so it should've been a thing that was announced VERY early on. Especially since I'd wager a lot of people are banking their pre-order on it.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49911625]Woah, slow down there killer. All it would've taken to avoid this huge kittenkaboodle would've been for them to have been forthright in the first place. They know it's a big deal and it's been a big deal since Dark Souls 1, so it should've been a thing that was announced VERY early on. Especially since I'd wager a lot of people are banking their pre-order on it.[/QUOTE]
Apparently announcing this kind of thing is a sad state of affairs.
[QUOTE=PieClock;49911671]Apparently announcing this kind of thing is a sad state of affairs.[/QUOTE]
It is. However From Soft should've known that it is and put this announcement in the chute ASAP, instead of a month before release.
[QUOTE=kyle877;49911684]It is. However From Soft should've known that it is and put this announcement in the chute ASAP, instead of a month before release.[/QUOTE]
From soft announce early that it's 60fps: Sad state of affairs that this needs announced.
From soft don't announce it, news sites report rumours from shit sources, from soft need to announce it's actually 60fps: Sad state of affairs that this needs announced.
There's literally no way to win for them, the problem is the news sites.
But whatever - this is good news. Thank fuck.
[QUOTE=PieClock;49911696]From soft announce early that it's 60fps: Sad state of affairs that this needs announced.
From soft don't announce it, news sites report rumours from shit sources, from soft need to announce it's actually 60fps: Sad state of affairs that this needs announced.
There's literally no way to win for them, the problem is the news sites.
But whatever - this is good news. Thank fuck.[/QUOTE]
It's not a problem with the news sites so much as it is a sad state of affairs for the whole industry. Combine that with From Soft's rather dodgy support on 60FPS games, you can make the logical jump on why people were worried.
It is a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario.
60 fps REALLY needs to become the fucking standard. How are we ever going to properly embrace VR (which requires 90 fps minimum IIRC) if we're struggling to get devs to support just 60 fps?
I'm glad FROM announced this, but it shouldn't need to be announced. It should be the fucking bar that devs aspire to.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49911748]60 fps REALLY needs to become the fucking standard. How are we ever going to properly embrace VR (which requires 90 fps minimum IIRC) if we're struggling to get devs to support just 60 fps?
I'm glad FROM announced this, but it shouldn't need to be announced. It should be the fucking bar that devs aspire to.[/QUOTE]
Thing is that it's just not always necessary.
Often (on standarized hardware) devs will prioritize visual fidelity over framerate, and in many games this makes sense and doesn't really detriment the experience.
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
On PC framerates should always be unlocked, of course.
[QUOTE=paul simon;49911870]Thing is that it's just not always necessary.
Often (on standarized hardware) devs will prioritize visual fidelity over framerate, and in many games this makes sense and doesn't really detriment the experience.
[editline]11th March 2016[/editline]
On PC framerates should always be unlocked, of course.[/QUOTE]
But there is no question that 60 fps runs, controls, and FEELS better as opposed to 30 fps. There are also some games, such as the fighting genre in general, that more or less REQUIRE 60 fps. If ancient hardware in the 90s could support 60 fps then why in the flying fuck isn't 60 fps more common than the fucking pause button? I really could give two shits about graphical fidelity if your game runs like ass. Make the game PLAY well (you know, that thing games are supposed to do) then worry about making it pretty.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49912156]But there is no question that 60 fps runs, controls, and FEELS better as opposed to 30 fps. There are also some games, such as the fighting genre in general, that more or less REQUIRE 60 fps. If ancient hardware in the 90s could support 60 fps then why in the flying fuck isn't 60 fps more common than the fucking pause button? I really could give two shits about graphical fidelity if your game runs like ass. Make the game PLAY well (you know, that thing games are supposed to do) then worry about making it pretty.[/QUOTE]
You know what should become a standard for console games? Giving the option, like in the Last of Us Remastered version, where people can select 60 fps yet less visual fidelity or 30 fps with more visual fidelity. Some people can play on 30 without any problems; hell I know at least one person who genuinely likes 30 more.
My point is, if possible it should always be an option. On PC games I'd like to have the possibility to lock it to 30, even though I'd never use it; I'd still love to see that possibility.
[QUOTE=I am Error;49912249]You know what should become a standard for console games? Giving the option, like in the Last of Us Remastered version, where people can select 60 fps yet less visual fidelity or 30 fps with more visual fidelity. Some people can play on 30 without any problems; hell I know at least one person who genuinely likes 30 more.
My point is, if possible it should always be an option. On PC games I'd like to have the possibility to lock it to 30, even though I'd never use it; I'd still love to see that possibility.[/QUOTE]
Now you see, I'd be perfectly happy with this. Best of both worlds in that case.
Of course the idea pleases me so that means it will never be a thing.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49912156]But there is no question that 60 fps runs, controls, and FEELS better as opposed to 30 fps. There are also some games, such as the fighting genre in general, that more or less REQUIRE 60 fps. If ancient hardware in the 90s could support 60 fps then why in the flying fuck isn't 60 fps more common than the fucking pause button? I really could give two shits about graphical fidelity if your game runs like ass. Make the game PLAY well (you know, that thing games are supposed to do) then worry about making it pretty.[/QUOTE]
Well notice how I said "many", not "all" games.
Fighting games are the kind that probably should be at the highest framerate possible.
But high framerates just isn't as important in all game genres, and being unreasonably angry about that isn't going to make it change when the general audience thinks it's fine.
On standardized hardware, it's all about prioritization and compromises, it's been the same for all 3D capable consoles.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49911381]It's a sad state of affairs when you have to announce this as some great feature
SNES ran shit at 60FPS progressive[/QUOTE]
Super Smash Bros Melee ran at 60 FPS and on a fucking Gamecube
[QUOTE=paul simon;49912441]Well notice how I said "many", not "all" games.
Fighting games are the kind that probably should be at the highest framerate possible.
But high framerates just isn't as important in all game genres, and being unreasonably angry about that isn't going to make it change when the general audience thinks it's fine.
On standardized hardware, it's all about prioritization and compromises, it's been the same for all 3D capable consoles.[/QUOTE]
Just seems like sound logic to want the gameplay, the reason most people buy games, to run as smoothly as possible. I find it hilarious that we're discussing VR when 60 fps isn't even an industry wide standard yet. Nothing wrong with wanting a visually pleasing game. Crysis blew my mind on Ultra, never mind the fact I couldn't even run the bitch at 30 fps. But I'm arguing purely from a gameplay standpoint, why would you NOT push for 60 fps? Seems like the only answer I ever get is because "cinematic experience/shiny bells and whistles." Good graphics alone does not a good game make.
The Order: 1886, nuff said.
[QUOTE=Solo Wing;49912602]Just seems like sound logic to want the gameplay, the reason most people buy games, to run as smoothly as possible. I find it hilarious that we're discussing VR when 60 fps isn't even an industry wide standard yet. Nothing wrong with wanting a visually pleasing game. Crysis blew my mind on Ultra, never mind the fact I couldn't even run the bitch at 30 fps. But I'm arguing purely from a gameplay standpoint, why would you NOT push for 60 fps? Seems like the only answer I ever get is because "cinematic experience/shiny bells and whistles." Good graphics alone does not a good game make.
The Order: 1886, nuff said.[/QUOTE]
Tbh 30 fps were one of the lesser problems with The Order: 1886.
[QUOTE=Linda,Octopus;49912615]Tbh 30 fps were one of the lesser problems with The Order: 1886.[/QUOTE]
I wholeheartedly agree. But it was ONE of the many problems.
So many rooms off the beaten path that had so much time, effort, and detail put into them. It's certainly nice to think about (Jesus Christ those fucking lamps were godlike) but I'd rather wall off a room that a majority of players would likely run past and never see. Take the effort put into that room and give the game 5 more minutes of [I]fun gameplay[/I].
Who knows, wall off a few of those rooms, maybe they could have increased the frame rate and made the gunplay not suck as much, but now I'm getting into "what if" territory.
[QUOTE=TheTalon;49911381]It's a sad state of affairs when you have to announce this as some great feature
SNES ran shit at 60FPS progressive[/QUOTE]
Pretty sure there's a pretty massive difference between rendering a bunch of pixels with mode 7 and rendering a 2016 next gen title that's not designed to run on PC hardware to begin with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
