Bungie explains why Destiny 2 is 30 FPS on consoles, even the PS4 Pro (CPU limits)

SapientWolf

Trucker Sexologist
Reads like bullshit to me, honestly. Like, be honest about your resources -- if you can't do it, then just say you can't. If it's a choice, and you chose one angle, then state so. Don't be like "Well, we have all this stuff, and when we pushed the 'on' switch it just didn't work" -- instead, be like, we have all this stuff, and we want to keep all of it, and we don't have the resources.

Because when you turn your attention to MP, it's not some ridiculous physics sim. TitanFall, Cod, they are physically doing the same things, and they are doing it at 60 fps -- grenade 'bounce' physics aren't chopping off that extra 30.

Just be honest, lol. "It's complicated" is such a fucking turn off.
If there aren't any dedicated server then all the physics are being calculated on netbook grade CPUs.
 
I do get pve being 30fps if the levels are actually large with tons of enemies even if the graphics aren't improved much from 1. But sorry, still no excuse for the Crucible being 30fps and I'm sad IGN didn't grill them on it.
I'm sad no one is grilling them on the PC delay too. These should be things every journo is asking for answers on.
 
They probably can do Crucible at 60FPS as none of the simulation exists in PvP. It's likely a design decision to not have a split target and a different "feel" between PvP and PvE. Afterall it's one of the reason Bungie is so annoyingly insistent on having weapons work the same way in PvE and PvP despite some people asking for otherwise.

Strange that H5 can hit 60fps with more AI and physics than anything I've seen from Destiny.
Halo 5:

1) Does not have as many enemies on screen at a given time as even Destiny 1 (please note the 'at a given time' as it's what makes all the difference)
2) Has half rate animations 10 feet away from player
3) The AI in Destiny is more advanced because it has more enemy variety at any given time with their separate patterns (Vex move different from Hive that move different from Fallen etc), it's basically an advanced version of Bungie's Halo AI which people have said to be better than 343's Halo AI.
 
doesn't halo also have the claymation-like enemies in the distance
Yeah the framerate of distant animations in H5 can, at times,be much lower than the overall framerate. But there is ALOT more going on in H5's Warzone compared to what I've seen in Destiny, with more complex physics. Perhaps they've ramped things for Destiny 2 though, who knows.

But, If we want to compare apples to apples though, halo's 4v4 modes don't have any such compromises, and are also 60fps locked.
 
4K/30fps is fine.

What about an option to drop the resolution for better framerate. Is resolution locked on consoles? (I feel like that's a n00b question lol)
 
Halo 5:

1) Does not have as many enemies on screen at a given time as even Destiny 1
2) Has half rate animations 10 feet away from player
3) The AI in Destiny is more advanced because it has more enemy variety at any given time with their separate patterns (Vex move different from Hive that move different from Fallen etc), it's basically an advanced version of Bungie's Halo AI which people have said to be better than 343's Halo AI.
4. Also drops resolution to maintain frame rate. It can drop as low as damn near 720p.
 
Halo 5:

1) Does not have as many enemies on screen at a given time as even Destiny 1
2) Has half rate animations 10 feet away from player
3) The AI in Destiny is more advanced because it has more enemy variety at any given time with their separate patterns (Vex move different from Hive that move different from Fallen etc), it's basically an advanced version of Bungie's Halo AI which people have said to be better than 343's Halo AI.
Everything you've said here is false. This coming from someone who prefers Destiny's gameplay to halo5's
 
Probably true to some degree but Bungie engines aren't a shining example of lean and mean. They didn't aim for 60fps and that's all there is to it.
This is basically it. I mean, if you want 60 fps, then you have to work to achieve it. In the history of developers talking about, and implementing higher framerates into their console games, they come at it with a development paradigm from the start where they actually *want* it. It's a desired thing.

Sometimes, they want it, and they can't get it and it's not for lack of trying (Uncharted 4).

But they are open and honest about the reality of it. That they tried, and they didn't get it, and the reasons are complex but they do their best to explain it as a series of choices.

When you think about games like Rage, for example, the design philosophy of the game was "Oh shit, this is tanking the framerate, this thing has to go", so it fed back to the system and then got cut. And I mean, there are technological work arounds to these things -- dynamic resolution as an example. Yes, you lose some things, but in multiplayer, for example, it's a more closed off space -- there are inherant limitations to it. The public space doesn't have 16 people running around, or whatever. You can certainly make a case for D2 in its PvE not achieving it, and I think that's fair, but I am struggling to see their excuses for PvP not being 60 fps as anything other than "Hey, we didn't want it."

And if you don't want it, okay, be honest about that and that can become the core topic. But don't act like it was some not achievable thing by the hardware's standards.

edit: As regards cpu bottleneck, I mean, there's a wealth of more 'rich physics' going on in a patrol than is likely to be seen in a MP match. Consider what they talked about: vehicles, AI, lots of enemy units -- all physical objects -- in addition to the players (the max having gone UP to a much larger number). So, they're explaining away the limitation in terms of the PvE experience, which is fine, but then you're saying that in the world of PvP (that is not likely to have AI units, vehicles, all of that) being included into their physics simulation, and a max of 8 players (lowered from the total of 16 or something in public playspaces) and you're telling me that all holds perfectly steady at 30, but on a move to MP, where we could afford reasonably to drop the quality and even implement dynamic resolution, that that is completely out of the question. What they have reasonably explained imo is why they can't have it in PvE, and I accept that, but I don't accept in a much smaller location, with fewer NPCs (0), no vehicles, just a lot less in general going on, that suddenly the lack of dedicated servers (something they are basically saying is out without much other reason) is the real gotcha. That doesn't add up to my admittedly stupid brain.
 
use vulkan or dx12 to offload a lot of the cpu instructions onto the gpu. but even then its iffy if it would hit 60. basically take a lot of load off the jag which is the bottleneck here.
or dynamic rez between 2k and 4k lol
DX12/vulkan doent offload anything to the GPU.
Dynamic resolution will only affect GPU load. the bottleneck is CPU.
What you said has absolutely nothing to do with physics and AI, which are the reasons for 30fps.
You are just proving his point...

All of the limits on the pve side are well known... The correct choice would to go down the gears 4 route and make multi be 60
But afaik multi in destiny is PvE - meaning still a lot of AI is needed.
 
Does Destiny really have "rich physics" or is it just a load of bull?
Well, that depends on what you consider to be rich physics. I remember back in the day Half-Life 2 did not despawn corpses and let them interact with the environment as well as having a healthy amount of destructible assets. Can't see the same in Destiny.
 
DX12/vulkan doent offload anything to the GPU.
Dynamic resolution will only affect GPU load. the bottleneck is CPU.
What you said has absolutely nothing to do with physics and AI, which are the reasons for 30fps.
You are just proving his point...


But afaik multi in destiny is PvE - meaning still a lot of AI is needed.
What

Destiny 2 pvp is 4v4 with no ai, small maps, no destruction and on console a low fov.

Pretty much every excuse they can use for PvE falls apart for the crucible.
 

LCGeek

formerly sane
The Scorpio uses the same CPU, which is why neither of these machines can ever reliably do 60fps in any kind of demanding game. The jaguar is a piece of shit CPU among piece of shit CPUs.

Our only real hope of 60fps glory will be when they drop in an actual CPU into these things.
Sadly unless a ryzen based apu exists I don't see things changing next gen. Until intel makes a gaming chip that can be cheap their main stuff will always be too pricy for 300-450$ machine.
 
Yeah the framerate of distant animations in H5 can, at times,be much lower than the overall framerate. But there is ALOT more going on in H5's Warzone compared to what I've seen in Destiny, with more complex physics. Perhaps they've ramped things for Destiny 2 though, who knows.

But, If we want to compare apples to apples though, halo's 4v4 modes don't have any such compromises, and are also 60fps locked.
have you played destiny? honest question.

i've played halo 5 and played warzones and i don't think it's doing anything more than what i witness in destiny, and looks worse to boot (imo)
 
"Bungie" "developers" say that the current generation of consoles' CPUs are too anemic to run Destiny 2 at a solid 60fps, but me, a NeoGAF poster who has played a PC game before, knows that if they just dropped the resolution from 1080p to 900p they could unquestionably double the framerate of a CPU-bound game, therefore Bungie are liars and l a z y
 
Yea but Halo 5 drops the resolution A LOT.
Which is more a gpu thing, no?

Besides that doesn't explain the lack of 60fps in the 4v4.

Reading some more posts though, I think I see the reason. In halo5, the physics and AI is handled by the server, whereas in destiny, it's all pvp- So whichever player is chosen for Hosting duties will have some of his CPU compute devoted to those items.

If you have to reserve it for one player, you have to reserve it for all, or else the host would essentially be getting punished
 
This is basically it. I mean, if you want 60 fps, then you have to work to achieve it. In the history of developers talking about, and implementing higher framerates into their console games, they come at it with a development paradigm from the start where they actually *want* it. It's a desired thing.

Sometimes, they want it, and they can't get it and it's not for lack of trying (Uncharted 4).

But they are open and honest about the reality of it. That they tried, and they didn't get it, and the reasons are complex but they do their best to explain it as a series of choices.

When you think about games like Rage, for example, the design philosophy of the game was "Oh shit, this is tanking the framerate, this thing has to go", so it fed back to the system and then got cut. And I mean, there are technological work arounds to these things -- dynamic resolution as an example. Yes, you lose some things, but in multiplayer, for example, it's a more closed off space -- there are inherant limitations to it. The public space doesn't have 16 people running around, or whatever. You can certainly make a case for D2 in its PvE not achieving it, and I think that's fair, but I am struggling to see their excuses for PvP not being 60 fps as anything other than "Hey, we didn't want it."

And if you don't want it, okay, be honest about that and that can become the core topic. But don't act like it was some not achievable thing by the hardware's standards.
No it's not, dynamic resolution does not improve framerate when the bottleneck is CPU. Why else do you think the game is 30FPS even at 1080P on Pro despite the fact that Pro can do (CBR)4k/30?

I agree with your statement that you have to aim from the start but it also means being ready to heavily sacrifice from the start. With CPU you don't just lose "some things" you lose a lot because the CPUs are weak as is and they are already crawling to get the existing things up and running and yet we have issues with size of world and enemy count etc. I'll also say if you aim for a simulation system then you'll probably not hit 60.

Destiny the way it exists cannot exist on consoles at 60FPS without doing away with the simulation and AI significantly, even if it does a ton of visual sacrifices and looks like ass because visuals again are almost entirely on the GPU not the CPU.
 
Why would you even comment on this having no idea what you're talking about? Destiny has competitive PvP multiplayer called the Crucible.
They could probably make the PvP 60fps, but is it worth it?
Won't people who like PvP buy battlefield/cod instead?
From my experience and the marketing of destiny that i see, its main attraction is the PvE multiplayer element.

How could you have played Destiny and not realize it has instanced arena pvp lol
I know PvP in destiny exists, but just like in Doom, i never played it.
 
Halo 5:

1) Does not have as many enemies on screen at a given time as even Destiny 1 (please note the 'at a given time' as it's what makes all the difference)
2) Has half rate animations 10 feet away from player
3) The AI in Destiny is more advanced because it has more enemy variety at any given time with their separate patterns (Vex move different from Hive that move different from Fallen etc), it's basically an advanced version of Bungie's Halo AI which people have said to be better than 343's Halo AI.
I have finished Halo 5, palyed some Warzone, and finished Destiny main and TTK campaigns. But I don't remember to see that much more (if any) enemies on screen compared to Halo 5. Warzone is very intense.

The AI in Halo 5 is also not shomething to be ashamed of. In fact, I think Destiny and Halo 5 AI's are both pretty decent compared to what we usually have on the market. In Halo 5 you also have enemies with different behavior together on screen. I can't even say that Destiny delivered better AI, cause I haven't notice that at all.

That said, I don't think these factors justifies the difference in frame-rate of both games. What I believe may be the key element to that difference is the dynamic resolution, which, in my opinion, is a good solution to keep the 60 frames per second, and I wasn't bothered with it in Halo 5 at any given moment since Xbox isn't that powerful.
 
"Bungie" "developers" say that the current generation of consoles' CPUs are too anemic to run Destiny 2 at a solid 60fps, but me, a NeoGAF poster who has played a PC game before, knows that if they just dropped the resolution from 1080p to 900p they could unquestionably double the framerate of a CPU-bound game, therefore Bungie are liars and l a z y
Sarcasm?

I can't tell these days but if you are being serious then fuckin lol ! Not only is it practically impossible it's even impossible in theory.