Support NeoGAF

[hsukardi]

You're not alone, I think 30fps is preferable under certain situations and requirements.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

As much as Ami is going to hate and flame and tear this post asunder, I'm going to make it anyway. That said this is just a general opinion about the matter that I feel like getting out.

I think there is validity to the opinion that a lower framerate (30, maybe just a bit under even) does give a game a much different feel than one that runs at super silky framerates. I don't know that I would say it makes something more "cinematic" but I don't know that I would want this game to be butter smooth; I think the lower framerate accommodates the atmosphere for Castlevania-- it's a very dark and medieval and by that very nature I don't think it should be ultra-smooth. I know the counter argument to that is that the game doesn't necessarily need to be 60fps as long as it runs fine and doesn't hinder the gameplay and I understand that. I think there's a difference between a game having a good, solid framerate and a game where the framerate issues conflicts with the gameplay.

I remember when Ocarina of Time came out and I played the demo at Wal-Mart (good times!) and even at age 14 I was like "this doesn't really run as smoothly as I'd hoped." But when I got the game, the framerate clicked with me especially when I got to the Forest Temple. Wait, I know, it's an old N64 game so expectations are different, but it still applies to this debate because when I got to the Forest Temple and the very haunting, dark and just insanely great atmosphere made me really appreciate the lower framerate. I just think that there's a difference between low framerates and bad framerates. Ocarina of Time had a lower framerate that helped accentuate its atmosphere and I feel the same way about Castlevania. Playing the demo and watching the numerous gameplay videos have not given me the impression that the framerate is bad, it's just low to accommodate the atmosphere. Now, as I mentioned in the other thread, I was watching a live stream of the 360 version and it slowed down considerably during combat with dozens of enemies-- that's bad framerate. However, most of the time, it ran very steadily and did not impede gameplay in any fashion.

This may sound silly to you (not just you Ami, not really trying to single you out here because I know others will find the argument just as dumb) but I absolutely do feel that way. Always have; I'm not lowering my framerate standards just to defend this game. If I played the demo and the framerate was bad enough to notice I would be complaining about it just as much as the next person, but it didn't, and again I don't think this is a game where Call of Duty framerates are necessary. To me the way the game runs is simply hand-in-hand with the mood of the the game. And considering the amount of detail and really, really good texture work, I'm very pleased with how it runs.

I agree 100%.

I never was one to appreciate PC games back in the day (still don't play them but mostly because I don't have a PC nor do I ever intend to get one to run any games) because I always felt the the super smooth, crisp and sharp edges felt lifeless. But I have to understand that a lot of people are used to that and prefer it. I've watched people play PC games and I never liked the super smooth camera movements that can completely rotate around in a few jerks of the mouse with no motion blur or anything that provides some sort of "life" to said movements. The best way i can explain it is lifeless.

 

[MoonsaultSlayer]

I guess we all attach ourselves differently to games. I view them as experiences while others want the most high-end technicalissues ironed out to justify their purchase. Some only see it as a game while others see it more than that?

To whoever said they'd like to see devs learn a thing or two... why not get in the biz and show them how it's done? Shitty argument but I had to say it.

 

[brandonh83]

That wasn't a "you're wrong" post in any capacity, but I did want to defend those who are saying the same thing because I agree with it myself. I don't dare tell Amir0x that he's wrong, because he's certainly not wrong and probably knows way more about this sort of thing than I do. All I can do is discuss it with my own expectations/experiences/preferences in mind. I just wanted to offer up my reasoning and I know for a fact that those who disagree have solid reasoning as well. Long story short, some of us feel that the framerate is better suited for the atmosphere in this game, whereas faster framerates are better suited for games that require much, much more precision than Castlevania, like COD. As long as the framerate doesn't get in the way of the gameplay and as long as it compliments the kind of atmosphere the product is after I see no reason to disregard it.

Ami played the demo and said that the framerate was jarring to him. That's fair game, he's played it and that's good enough for me. I completely disagree as I've played it numerous times on the toughest difficulty and found the game to run just fine and nothing got in the way of the combat. It was lower during cutscenes which I'm not a fan of but it's no deal breaker.

 

[Q8D3vil]

wait a minute, this game is not like god war 3 ?!
i mean the fps is between 40-60 right ?!
if its lower than that then no rent/borrowing for me

 

[jett]

Beyond3D for pixels counting, DF for everything else. This should be the law of comparison threads.

Lens of Truth is a joke.

Why is Lens of Truth a joke exactly? I find them to be way more unbiased than DF.

 

[Drinky Crow]

60 fps or die. i am getting to the point in my gaming career where i may start ignoring any games that don't give me at LEAST a rock solid 30 fps, and ideally 60 fps. anything less is honestly unpleasant.

 

[Synless]

Why is Lens of Truth a joke exactly? I find them to be way more unbiased than DF.

As do I, but they do have some dumb rules like no 360 install comparisons, not using full RGB on PS3, ect..... However, DF have made some ridiculous comments showing their bias towards a certain console.

 

[Requeim]

As do I, but they do have some dumb rules like no 360 install comparisons, not using full RGB on PS3, ect..... However, DF have made some ridiculous comments showing their bias towards a certain console.

fuck this shit, name and shame :lol

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

As do I, but they do have some dumb rules like no 360 install comparisons, not using full RGB on PS3, ect..... However, DF have made some ridiculous comments showing their bias towards a certain console.

Not using Full RGB is actually the correct setting for most televisions. I know that turning it on makes things darker (and some say more vibrant) but you're losing picture information. I believe the ideal solution is to calibrate the TV properly for the PS3, and then you see the difference disappear or diminish. But if they're just plugging the PS3 and 360 into the same device and not calibrating anything, there will be a different picture. I guess you could argue that that in itself is a bad practice.

I'm just talking based on what I've gleaned from the OCD psychos at AVSforum, but I'm pretty confident in my understanding of Full RGB.

As for bias toward a certain console... it would hard not to appear biased when the 360 routinely outperforms the PS3 on multiplatform games, wouldn't it? Do you have examples of biased statements that aren't simply pointing out the advantages of the 360 version?

 

[Synless]

fuck this shit, name and shame :lol

I'm not sure I understand your comment, is that a jab at me?

@ Hey_it's_that_dog, I can give some examples later, I'm on my phone right now. I'll just say they've stated some crazy tech claims on certain consoles ability to perform better than another without any concrete evidence to support those claims.

 

[Ledsen]

I agree 100%.

I never was one to appreciate PC games back in the day (still don't play them but mostly because I don't have a PC nor do I ever intend to get one to run any games) because I always felt the the super smooth, crisp and sharp edges felt lifeless. But I have to understand that a lot of people are used to that and prefer it. I've watched people play PC games and I never liked the super smooth camera movements that can completely rotate around in a few jerks of the mouse with no motion blur or anything that provides some sort of "life" to said movements. The best way i can explain it is lifeless.

The reason this is a silly argument is because these things have nothing to do with framerate. In a modern game, you have tons and tons of effects like depth of field, ambient occlusion, motion blur etc making the game feel very lifelike and "gritty" no matter what the framerate is. In an old game like for example OoT, the reason it looks sterile and boring in super high resolution is because the huge flaws in textures and geometry become much more apparent. In a modern game this doesn't apply. So if you take a game like Castlevania, with its copious amounts of motion blur, lighting effects etc, it would look considerably better in 60 fps and super high resolution as long as you didn't sacrifice any graphical fidelity to get there. So basically a low framerate in no way makes a game look more "gritty" or "cinematic", it merely allows for a lot more additional graphical effects that indeed do make the game look gritty and cinematic.

 

[Requeim]

I'm not sure I understand your comment, is that a jab at me?

Nope, i just asked you to clarify

 

[Synless]

Nope, i just asked you to clarify

I will, but what part of thay statement was a question? Maybe someone with a computer that knows what I'm talking about can get to it first.

 

[corrosivefrost]

how does this thread not have any pictures or videos and we're over 100 posts.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't think LoT is bad. They're pretty good with video feed, they often provide multiple perspectives, and I don't think there is as much editorializing as DF. But, to that point, sometimes you want that.

how does this thread not have any pictures or videos and we're over 100 posts.

Well, the game's not out, and there are no official comparisons. The thread was made really to get it out of the main thread.

 

[SolidSnakex]

As for bias toward a certain console... it would hard not to appear biased when the 360 routinely outperforms the PS3 on multiplatform games, wouldn't it? Do you have examples of biased statements that aren't simply pointing out the advantages of the 360 version?

The FFXIII comparison annoyed a lot of people. His initial comparison was less about comparing the two games and more about complaining about how Square messed up. I think that this was largely because he'd made a previous article where he talked about how the 360 version should turn out.

 

[Windom Earle]

DF is great for the tech facts, the problem is that Leadbetter sometimes feels the need to throw personal preferences into the articles. Just take them with a grain of salt.

 

[Synless]

The FFXIII comparison annoyed a lot of people. His initial comparison was less about comparing the two games and more about complaining about how Square messed up. I think that this was largely because he'd made a previous article where he talked about how the 360 version should turn out.

This is exactly the example I was talking about. I recall there is another article that he made some biased comments about as well. Ill read through the articles and find it later.

 

[Dark Octave]

The reason this is a silly argument is because these things have nothing to do with framerate. In a modern game, you have tons and tons of effects like depth of field, ambient occlusion, motion blur etc making the game feel very lifelike and "gritty" no matter what the framerate is. In an old game like for example OoT, the reason it looks sterile and boring in super high resolution is because the huge flaws in textures and geometry become much more apparent. In a modern game this doesn't apply. So if you take a game like Castlevania, with its copious amounts of motion blur, lighting effects etc, it would look considerably better in 60 fps and super high resolution as long as you didn't sacrifice any graphical fidelity to get there. So basically a low framerate in no way makes a game look more "gritty" or "cinematic", it merely allows for a lot more additional graphical effects that indeed do make the game look gritty and cinematic.

In short, we are at a point to where we are bringing these systems to their knees.

Five or six years is long enough. We need to move on or stop complaining about the inevitable framerate issues with effect heavy and graphics intensive games. It's not something you can simply wave a magic wand at get rid of and when it comes to a game this big, I'm not about to play something that looks like Oni (slight exaggeration) in order to achieve a solid 30-60 fps.

But back on topic, as long as the framerate doesn't drop during platforming scenes that would cast me in a pit time after time, I'm good.

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

This is exactly the example I was talking about. I recall there is another article that he made some biased comments about as well. Ill read through the articles and find it later.

Ah, I assumed people meant console bias but really we're talking about editorializing. As long as it's clear which parts are tech facts and which parts are a guy expressing his opinion I don't really mind.

 

[RavenFox]

The FFXIII comparison annoyed a lot of people. His initial comparison was less about comparing the two games and more about complaining about how Square messed up. I think that this was largely because he'd made a previous article where he talked about how the 360 version should turn out.

yup and he got called on it by many.

 

[Victrix]

But back on topic, as long as the framerate doesn't drop during platforming scenes that would cast me in a pit time after time, I'm good.

I don't think that's going to happen, the thread just got badly derailed by the fps idiocy, and, you know, the game not being out yet

I'm more interested to hear if there are either a) any _substantive_ fps issues between the two versions and b) if there are any significant graphical or color issues between the two

Otherwise it just comes down to controller preference. Or HD space, if your 360 is tiny, like mine :~(

Decent ports are usually close, but there are the odd Bayonettas in the mix, so given the choice, I do want to know which version to grab.

 

[corrosivefrost]

I don't think LoT is bad. They're pretty good with video feed, they often provide multiple perspectives, and I don't think there is as much editorializing as DF. But, to that point, sometimes you want that.



Well, the game's not out, and there are no official comparisons. The thread was made really to get it out of the main thread.

But there are plenty of people who got it from mom/pop shops, it seems. They could collaborate and post [amateur] photo/video to at least give us something...

Decent ports are usually close, but there are the odd Bayonettas in the mix, so given the choice, I do want to know which version to grab.

I still don't think Bayonetta was as bad as people made it out to be.

 

[Tears For Fears]

I never read what Df has to say in their articles. I just watch the videos and make the comparisons myself. I don't have time for hyperbole.

 

[REMEMBER CITADEL]

Five or six years is long enough. We need to move on or stop complaining about the inevitable framerate issues with effect heavy and graphics intensive games.

Rage.

 

[Dark Octave]

I don't think that's going to happen, the thread just got badly derailed by the fps idiocy, and, you know, the game not being out yet

I'm more interested to hear if there are either a) any _substantive_ fps issues between the two versions and b) if there are any significant graphical or color issues between the two

Otherwise it just comes down to controller preference. Or HD space, if your 360 is tiny, like mine :~(

Decent ports are usually close, but there are the odd Bayonettas in the mix, so given the choice, I do want to know which version to grab.

I usually go with 360 as my first choice but that whole FFXIII thing was really strange and ended up going with the PS3 version but looking back, it really wouldn't have mattered as the game is long gone and my memories aren't exactly 1080p.

For Castlevania, I looked for answers but haven't found them yet, so I think I'll just go in blind and get the 360 version (controller, friends, achievements, risk of RRoD). What I don't know can't hurt me and the game will still be great, I'm sure.

 

[Tears For Fears]

I usually go with 360 as my first choice but that whole FFXIII thing was really strange and ended up going with the PS3 version but looking back, it really wouldn't have mattered as the game is long gone and my memories aren't in 1080p.

For Castlevania, I looked for answers but haven't found them yet, so I think I'll just go in blind and get the 360 version (controller, friends, achievements, risk of RRoD). What I don't know can't hurt me.

RROD? What year is this 2005?

 

[Synless]

RROD? What year is this 2005?

Not all of us have those new fancy 360's I have a shit green Halo 3 360 and I'm paranoid everyday that it might be the last day I play it.

 

[Dark Octave]

RROD? What year is this 2005?

:lol I hope you are right and it's all over. I just bought a new 360 at the beginning of the year because of my 7th or 8th RRoD.

Trust me, I REALLY hope you are right.

 

[Victrix]

RROD? What year is this 2005?

I just wrote what year I have, but I deleted it, I don't want to jinx myself

Let's just say I pray to pagan deities every time I boot up my 360

 

[hey_it's_that_dog]

RROD? What year is this 2005?

Unless you think every 360 released in the first few years of its life has already died and been replaced by a new model, then RROD is still a threat to many people regardless of what year it is.

 

[Tears For Fears]

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it, my xbox was manufactured in 07. Still going strong.

 

[corrosivefrost]

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it, my xbox was manufactured in 07. Still going strong.

I've had 07 and 08 360s e74 on me... hoping this 09 is more stable, but it's sounded like death since day 1.

This is why I've moved everything to PS3 unless I have a specific friend to play something with on 360, or the port is fuct. :lol

 

[Dark Octave]

Yeah, I wouldn't worry too much about it, my xbox was manufactured in 07. Still going strong.

So was one of mine. I got an Elite the first day they came out ('07 right?).

Holy smokes was that thing a time bomb.

 

[Amir0x]

As much as Ami is going to hate and flame and tear this post asunder, I'm going to make it anyway. That said this is just a general opinion about the matter that I feel like getting out.

I think there is validity to the opinion that a lower framerate (30, maybe just a bit under even) does give a game a much different feel than one that runs at super silky framerates. I don't know that I would say it makes something more "cinematic" but I don't know that I would want this game to be butter smooth; I think the lower framerate accommodates the atmosphere for Castlevania-- it's a very dark and medieval and by that very nature I don't think it should be ultra-smooth. I know the counter argument to that is that the game doesn't necessarily need to be 60fps as long as it runs fine and doesn't hinder the gameplay and I understand that. I think there's a difference between a game having a good, solid framerate and a game where the framerate issues conflicts with the gameplay.

I remember when Ocarina of Time came out and I played the demo at Wal-Mart (good times!) and even at age 14 I was like "this doesn't really run as smoothly as I'd hoped." But when I got the game, the framerate clicked with me especially when I got to the Forest Temple. Wait, I know, it's an old N64 game so expectations are different, but it still applies to this debate because when I got to the Forest Temple and the very haunting, dark and just insanely great atmosphere made me really appreciate the lower framerate. I just think that there's a difference between low framerates and bad framerates. Ocarina of Time had a lower framerate that helped accentuate its atmosphere and I feel the same way about Castlevania. Playing the demo and watching the numerous gameplay videos have not given me the impression that the framerate is bad, it's just low to accommodate the atmosphere. Now, as I mentioned in the other thread, I was watching a live stream of the 360 version and it slowed down considerably during combat with dozens of enemies-- that's bad framerate. However, most of the time, it ran very steadily and did not impede gameplay in any fashion.

This may sound silly to you (not just you Ami, not really trying to single you out here because I know others will find the argument just as dumb) but I absolutely do feel that way. Always have; I'm not lowering my framerate standards just to defend this game. If I played the demo and the framerate was bad enough to notice I would be complaining about it just as much as the next person, but it didn't, and again I don't think this is a game where Call of Duty framerates are necessary. To me the way the game runs is simply hand-in-hand with the mood of the the game. And considering the amount of detail and really, really good texture work, I'm very pleased with how it runs.

Because of all of this is factually bullshit. "Low to accommodate atmosphere" is the most self-serving, unintelligible shit ever spoken by anyone on this forum. It literally says "I know absolutely shit about framerate, I have to find a way to make an excuse about what I like, and this is the only way I know how."

You can accommodate absolutely any fucking atmosphere under the sun with 60fps, and more yet, you can also improve the gameplay in significant ways. Castlevania is a God of War style action game through and through, and even though 30fps is acceptable, 60fps is even better yet. In other words, there are zero benefits to a framerate under 30; there are a billion benefits to framerates above. It's not something that's arguable, it's a fact. You may argue that the sun is cold til you're blue in the face, but guess what, the sun is still fucking scathingly hot.

The only fucking people who claim shit like this are ones who are so deprived of their critical thinking faculties that they literally don't know ANYTHING about the subject they're discussing.

 

[dark10x]

Abso-fucking-lutely.

It's bad enough games seemingly can't go beyond 30fps 9/10 times on consoles, but at least that is playable.

At 24fps, for me, it's something that's going to be a constant source of frustration. The terrible framerate almost ruined Shadow of the Colossus for me. Framerate is hugely important to games and anything sub-30 is not acceptable, no.

It's one thing to have OCCASIONAL drops, but if it's consistent, it's not something I'm going to support.

You really thought the demo was bad in this regard?

I also tend to hate framerate drops, of course, but the motion blur here is SO good that it really makes up for the performance drops (in that it smooths them over in a way that is typically reserved for CG video). Without this motion blur I would call the framerate unacceptable. With it, however, it looks so much better than it really should.

 

[Amir0x]

You really thought the demo was bad in this regard?

I also tend to hate framerate drops, of course, but the motion blur here is SO good that it really makes up for the performance drops (in that it smooths them over in a way that is typically reserved for CG video). Without this motion blur I would call the framerate unacceptable. With it, however, it looks so much better than it really should.

Yup, I thought the demo was unacceptably bad.

 

[dark10x]

Yup, I thought the demo was unacceptably bad.

Fair enough. I suspect it won't be that bad most of the time as the rain likely has an impact. Still, it's an exception for me. Can't get enough of that motion blur.

 

[brandonh83]

There are plenty of games this gen I've enjoyed with what I would call janky, unstable framerates. Resident Evil 5 and Assassin's Creed II and so on come to mind. I find that Castlevania runs better than those so I'm good. RE5, when it did run good, it was all swell but playing the PS3 version I experienced a fair share of nearly game-breaking drops. But yeah Ami, I know I'm an indescribable moron in your book, always have been so nothing has changed. I guess it does just boil down to what everyone accepts and can deal with, like I said those games mentioned above had pretty spotty framerates. However, both were still incredibly enjoyable experiences to me nonetheless and despite your shit-flinging, I still think there's a difference between low and bad framerates. Low isn't always necessarily a horrible thing in my experience.

edit: fixed for Victrix

 

[Victrix]

<runonsentenceofepicfuckingproportions>

I still think there's a difference between low and bad framerates and that low isn't always necessarily a horrible thing.

Low is always a horrible thing

 

[Amir0x]

There are plenty of games this gen I've enjoyed with what I would call janky, unstable framerates like Resident Evil 5 and Assassin's Creed II and so on and I find that Castlevania runs better than those so I'm good. RE5, when it did run good, it was all swell but playing the PS3 version I experienced a fair share of nearly game-breaking drops. But yeah Ami, I know I'm an indescribable moron in your book, always have been so nothing has changed. I guess it does just boil down to what everyone accepts and can deal with, like I said those games mentioned above had pretty spotty framerates but both were still incredibly enjoyable experiences to me nonetheless and despite your shit-flinging I still think there's a difference between low and bad framerates and that low isn't always necessarily a horrible thing.

I don't think you're a moron, we have different taste (I just think your taste is bad). Having bad taste doesn't make you a moron :lol

I think sometimes, however, you don't really sit and think about what you're saying. We all have times where we're like this, but for something like this... what is the point? I don't think I'm wrong, given what you've said, to assume you know almost nothing about framerates. So why even make a complete factually bullshit statement about a subject you know nothing about?

If framerate isn't something you notice, leave it at that - you don't need knowledge of framerates to know it isn't something that impacts your enjoyment.

However, you do need knowledge of framerates to know that something like "it's a low framerate to accommodate atmosphere" is just infuriatingly incorrect.

Fair enough. I suspect it won't be that bad most of the time as the rain likely has an impact. Still, it's an exception for me. Can't get enough of that motion blur.

I understand. I mean, for example, I got through Shadow of the Colossus, but the framerate almost killed the game for me... and it was my most anticipated game of that year. I don't think Castlevania is quite THAT bad, yet I don't think I want to support developers who don't at least hit a 30fps standard. Obviously with the state of the industry, I can't only buy 60fps games, or else I'd buy no games, but I think it's not too much to ask for a locked 30fps at this point.

 

[Solo]

I don't think you're a moron

The only fucking people who claim shit like this are ones who are so deprived of their critical thinking faculties that they literally don't know ANYTHING about the subject they're discussing.

It kind of sounds like you're calling him a moron.

 

[Pimpbaa]

Why is Lens of Truth a joke exactly? I find them to be way more unbiased than DF.

Lens of Truth became a joke to me when they did their comparisons of Just Cause 2. They spent most of their time bitching about how bad the game looked (when in reality it is one of the better looking open world games this gen). Their attitude was pretty much the differences didn't matter because the game looked like shit.

 

[brandonh83]

If framerate isn't something you notice, leave it at that - you don't need knowledge of framerates to know it isn't something that impacts your enjoyment.

It's true, most of the time I don't really take note of it. I take note when it actually becomes noticeable and makes me go "oh my god," like when I was watching the 360 ver. stream yesterday. That, to me, was a horrible framerate drop. I found nothing like that, not even close, in the demo. It was low, but remained steady for me. So yeah, you're right-- this probably isn't the debate for me at all and I see the error of my ways. I'm no technical guru, I just know when something is bad or good enough for me personally and I do also want to note that I'm much bigger on texturing and overall picture quality (contrast, colors, etc.) than I am framerate. If a game has an incredibly high framerate but everything else sucks, I'm not a fan. But Castlevania, while not having a high framerate, excels in so many other ways that yeah, I don't really mind.

It kind of sounds like you're calling him a moron.

He doesn't think I'm a moron in general, but that I'm being a moron about this. I think. Something along those lines. That being said, I'll take my bow, I may disagree about the framerate but I do not disagree that this topic probably isn't for me.

 

[rollingstart]

I'm just saying that there is a reason that (sane) people don't complain when a game is 60fps. I don't think developers aim to hit 30 or lower since the PC versions of those games are uncapped most of the time. It's usually because they are trying to do more than the PS3 and 360 can handle and have to make compromises. They generally choose to make a nicer looking game and sacrifice performance, or in the case of Call of Duty, it's the other way around.

It's like saying the developers of Alan Wake or other sub-HD planned to make a blurry looking game. Or that tearing is part of the visual design (uh, other than Kane and Lynch 2).

I can live with lower frame rates of games like Assassin's Creed, Rockstar games, and now, Castlevania but my preferences is definitely having a smoother game. I will drop graphical settings on my PC if it isn't running smoothly. In games like Saints Row 2 on the 360, I will turn off vsync in favor of a better frame rate.

 

[RoninChaos]

It literally says "I know absolutely shit about framerate, I have to find a way to make an excuse about what I like, and this is the only way I know how."

The only fucking people who claim shit like this are ones who are so deprived of their critical thinking faculties that they literally don't know ANYTHING about the subject they're discussing.

I don't think people would feel like they had to make excuses for what they like if people weren't being told their opinions were stupid on what they found to be an acceptable frame rate.

Regardless, I think the game runs pretty well. There are definitely games out there where frame rate drops can make or break a game, I just don't think this is one of them.

At least we haven't hit Shadow of the Colussus style slow down yet. I think my PS2 wanted to cry every time I played that game.

 

[TheFLYINGManga_Ka]

playing it right off the disc to test framerate. gonna see if i can install both dics a little further in though.

Have you tried installing both discs on the HDD yet? If so, is there a improvement?

 

[Amir0x]

It kind of sounds like you're calling him a moron.

Lacking critical thinking on this subject != moron. It means he's not thinking this specific thing through (via his framerate atmosphere comment). He clearly didn't.

I don't think people would feel like they had to make excuses for what they like if people weren't being told their opinions were stupid on what they found to be an acceptable frame rate.

inability to note nuance in a conversation on your part.

I'm not at all commenting on what framerate he finds "acceptable" - that's a personal thing, even if I think that's a low standard indeed. I'm commenting on the nonsensical nature of saying something that's factually incorrect like "the framerate is low to accommodate the atmosphere".

 

[vg260]

So have the developer's claims that the 360 slowdown in review versions is fixed been verified, or was it just hot air/damage control?