SolidSnakex said:This isn't a Sega developed game though. It's from Platinum Games, Sega is just publishing it.
It is using a Sega engine though.
SolidSnakex said:This isn't a Sega developed game though. It's from Platinum Games, Sega is just publishing it.
TheExodu5 said:Frame drops were the least of NG2's problems.
Phoenix Fang said:And it was still more fun than 99% of the games put out this gen.
TheExodu5 said:It's my most hated 360 game. And I own Dead or Alive Xtreme 2.
I've never seen an action game go out of it's way with ranged and flying enemies to ensure you're not having fun.
Phoenix Fang said:Then you should stick to playing easy mode. Matter of fact the game was so much fun I still play it till this day even after getting all the achievements.
VNZ said:"Locking" is used way too often regarding framerates.
Sure – you can cap the framerate, as in not letting the engine go above a certain fps limit (as in most 30fps games for consoles). Locking the framerate isn't that simple. It was indeed a feature of the Model 2 arcade board (or was it Model 3?), where the hardware would simply discard any polygons not drawn in the alotted time frame – but these days even the smartest culling algorithms aren't really able to avoid some dips here and there. Why? Because the designers simply throw too much shit at the engine.
Nice ass by the way.
TheExodu5 said:I've played through DMC3 (original) on Hard no problem.
The difficulty is not the issue. It's the terrible level/enemy design, which is somehow even worse than DMC4.
TheExodu5 said:I've played through DMC3 (original) on Hard no problem.
The difficulty is not the issue. It's the terrible level/enemy design, which is somehow even worse than DMC4.
TheExodu5 said:I've played through DMC3 (original) on Hard no problem.
The difficulty is not the issue. It's the terrible level/enemy design, which is somehow even worse than DMC4.
Kuraudo said:It is using a Sega engine though.
Just like Ghostbusters turned out right?szaromir said::lol
I can't believe 3 years after the launch we still have those discussions. The game will be identical, there might be some slight differences related to different GPU rendering methods but that's it.
lupinko said:blim of gamersyde mentioned that Kamiya told him that it was PG's own internal engine that used.
stuburns said:Maybe I'm miss remembering the quote then. I was sure it was NG2.
OldJadedGamer said:Many devs just demo the lead platform version. Last gen everyone demoed the PS2 version and the Xbox version came out just fine. It's just easier to demo one platform than two obviously. Many games where the PS3 version wasn't shown for a long time turned out perfectly fine.
BeeDog said:I'll believe it when I see it. That little interview blurb someone posted a while ago, where the response to a question whether the PS3 version is progressing was something along "uhh, it's progressing (LAUGHS!)", still makes me nervous.
Ghostbusters was especially funny because developers praised PS3 to heavens. However, I think this Bayonetta video deserves a proper discussion, not another "they're not showing PS3 version so it must be shit". Similarly, I remember the same discussion about Mirror's Edge for 360 and it seemed equally ridiculous to me.XiaNaphryz said:Just like Ghostbusters turned out right?
No, he did a lot of interviews about the game. And he went after the game shipped.Spirit of Jazz said:I'm pretty sure it would be a pretty ludicrous claim to make given the numbers on screen during the Ninja steps... But you're confused, I'm pretty sure Itagaki was out of the door before he had the time to hype it up in previews and the like.
Phoenix Fang said:That's what I loved the most about it. I found the level design to be way better than NG IMO
And if the videos are anything to go by, Bayonetta may output 60fps but it's certainly not drawing that many. It tears all over the place, in a huge percentage of frames. Fortunately, tearing is a lot less noticeable at full speed from a 60fps game, so in motion it's not as distracting as bad tearing in a 30fps game. But it was still very prevalent as recently as E3.VNZ said:"Locking" is used way too often regarding framerates.
black_vegeta said:[/B]
Amen brotha!!!
DMC3 was one of my favorite games.
DMC4, I could care less about.
How can you get tearing at less than 60fps? I thought having more frames than the tv can output is what caused the problem in the first place. I'm sure there will be a vsync option for those who are sensitive to the issue but I won't be using it. Any chance of a PC port?Liabe Brave said:And if the videos are anything to go by, Bayonetta may output 60fps but it's certainly not drawing that many. It tears all over the place, in a huge percentage of frames. Fortunately, tearing is a lot less noticeable at full speed from a 60fps game, so in motion it's not as distracting as bad tearing in a 30fps game. But it was still very prevalent as recently as E3.
stuburns said:No, he did a lot of interviews about the game. And he went after the game shipped.
Phoenix Fang said:That's what I loved the most about it. I found the level design to be way better than NG IMO
Really? Do we know which other titles used the same engine?Kuraudo said:It is using a Sega engine though.
No, what causes the problem is the renderer not being able to finish drawing the next frame before the output device needs it. As a result, it just fills in what it hasn't drawn with the same image as the previous frame. During motion, this results in a hard horizontal tear between the two different images. Since broadcast standard in the U.S. is 30 frames/60 fields per second, tearing happens at any draw rate not evenly divisible into these (so 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 60fps are all tear-safe*).SapientWolf said:How can you get tearing at less than 60fps? I thought having more frames than the tv can output is what caused the problem in the first place.
MvmntInGrn said:Really? Do we know which other titles used the same engine?
That doesn't sound right at all. I've never seen tearing on a sub 60fps game. Can anyone confirm this?Liabe Brave said:No, what causes the problem is the renderer not being able to finish drawing the next frame before the output device needs it. As a result, it just fills in what it hasn't drawn with the same image as the previous frame. During motion, this results in a hard horizontal tear between the two different images. Since broadcast standard in the U.S. is 30 frames/60 fields per second, tearing happens at any draw rate not evenly divisible into these (so 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, and 60fps are all tear-safe*).
V-sync tells the renderer not to output torn frames, but instead to wait until the next complete frame at one of those acceptable rates. Therefore, a game that fluctuates between 27fps and 30fps will tear a lot; with v-sync on it will show no tearing, but the framerate will flip between 30fps and 20fps (with nothing in between). Hence, v-sync gets rid of tearing but results in lower average framerates. There are other methods to banish tearing; all have tradeoffs and costs.
* Theoretically, the new 120Hz displays could also show 6, 12, 24, and 40fps without tearing, but I'm not sure any consoles have output methods that could allow that.
SapientWolf said:That doesn't sound right at all. I've never seen tearing on a sub 60fps game. Can anyone confirm this?
stuburns said:60fps doesn't mean they look the same.
There must be a reason they haven't been showing it on PS3.
SapientWolf said:That doesn't sound right at all. I've never seen tearing on a sub 60fps game. Can anyone confirm this?
2 Minutes Turkish said:Have you played Resident Evil 5?
SapientWolf said:That doesn't sound right at all. I've never seen tearing on a sub 60fps game. Can anyone confirm this?
Tiduz said:uhm wasnt that 30 fps
Dedication Through Light said:Why couldnt they give us a 1080p mode at 60fps. Now that would be awesome