I repeat to you hardly a software house locked intentionally 20 fps in the gameplay. Not has sense. It's a double buffer issue. For the simple fact, stay to 20 fps all the time not improve anything. More the contrary.
So GTA, AC, Bethesda games were too ambitious to stay on ps360 in the past? Right?
You sound like you have a decent amount of knowledge of this stuff, which makes it perplexing why you act like you don't understand the point I'm making here. The PS4 is more powerful, but that does mean it will look *and* perform better in every game. It does not in many instances. The gaps between versions are not some set thing that will always play out exactly as any on-paper specs would indicate as there are a lot more variable to account for.
It sounds like a poor judgement call as a developer where you look at a low 20 framerate and think the solution is to introduce double buffer v-sync rather than to improve the frame rate that makes you think that a whole scene requires such treatment.
That's really too far reaching of a conclusion.
Well I was sarcastic.
Still too early to call. Give them 6 months worth of patches to try to fix it. The game is clearly unfished but they must not have wanted another delay. It could be that WB insisted they release it as is. This situation is far beyond anything CD Projekt Red has had to deal with in the past. Open-world games are probably the hardest genre to balance visuals and performance while struggling with the massive amount of bugs. They might not be able to fix it but it's only been 2 weeks so it isn't possible to draw any conclusion at this point.
That's fine, because your policing in these threads and this (temper your expectations schtick) is a bit unsettling as it is. Technical threads are not for dishonesty and being willingly obtuse, even disingenuous at that. It's also strange that you are so involved in the PS4 vs XB1 debate, yet you own neither, but yet you are here in every PS4 vs XB1 thread to ensure that people don't believe too much in their PS4's.
Obviously it wouldn't be an either/or situation.
I do agree, but I know a few gaffers have mentioned that they are holding off until the kinks are ironed out.
I don't think games on consoles can benefit all that much from graphics options, actually -- except aesthetic ones like CA. Does anyone really want the choice of playing below 30 FPS? If not, then the only meaningful choice would be between 30 and 60 FPS, and that's generally too far a range for options.
They should lock it at 24. Some TVs could even do that stutter-free!
I think RAD mentioned toying around with 24 fps in The Order 1886 to see if it could be playable, but decided that 30 fps was a much better experience. As far as a technical level, I think you can force 24hz output for bluray movie viewing.
It's annoying isn't it.
You're right.
I am as well, there's no way I will support a game in this state, but I'm glad you're enjoying it regardless.
Lol, controls looked fine to me, it's not bloodborne combat but it's more RPGesque anyway. Seems like you play it more for the story/quest/adventure rather than precision combat. I can understand if you're not into that though, precision games are more my style as well. I concur with SF, it's playable but it still needs work, when they fix it, it will feel even better to you.
Double buffer. It happened in some gameplay situations too unfortunately.
They should fix sooner the locked 20 fps because it's a lot more annoying.
