Support NeoGAF

[NeoUltima]

Do you have the magic version of Lords of Shadow that doesn't exist for a single person on Earth? On both PS3 and 360, it runs at 24~25fps average with dips here and there. Pretty much you betrayed your ability to judge framerates by this post, since you couldn't tell the difference. But that's good for you - you're one of those lucky ones for which abysmal framerates do not impact you.

Are you basing that on the full game or the demo level? For the demo that's true. But the rest of the game(well I'm only through Ch 3 now) does seem be running above 30fps most of the time, oftentimes well above. Coincidentally, the one other stage I noticed a cruddy framerate happened to have heavy rain effects like the demo stage.

With that said, the game has one of those unlocked framerates, which in and of itself is annoying(even if it is above 30fps for the most part)

 

[Amir0x]

How come you always have problems enjoying all the best games like Uncharted 2 and Halo Reach?

I enjoyed Uncharted 2. Halo Reach, yeah, I'm having trouble getting into. The framerate is too frequently severe.

And the answer is in what this topic has mainly been about. Fuck developer's who can't get minimum 30fps locked. I won't lower my standards any further as some fans are doing

 

[LowParry]

Well, here's hoping that we'll see a patch fix later on. DLC is being planned. I swear to god if that ends up being the 30fps over the actual product, there will be bloody tears alright. When I stab their eyes out.

 

[brain_stew]

I'm framerate sensitive (so picky, I own an 5970 for my PC) and have no issue playing LoS on PS3 :/ It's sub 30 yes but feels consistent. It does, at times, jump in demanding situations but at least not to the point of diminishing the experience.

Dead Rising 2 (console version) on the other hand is unplayable for me, the framerate chugs massively in some areas, making animation appear choppy. I have NO idea how anyone can deal with the drops in DR2 and I'm honestly shocked Capcom released it in such a state, but that's just me. Thankfully there's a PC version.

A consistent framerate, even if it's rather low, is still bearable to my eyes. I'd prefer a locked 25FPS over something that fluctuates between 30 and 15.

Multi GPU users aren't "framerate sensitive."

People that can notice slight hitches in framerates wouldn't put up with every single one of their games having some amount of stuttering as multi GPU users do.

The fact that you believe the framerate here is "consistent" when it clearly isn't anything of the sort further reinforces that notion.

 

[jett]

DF holding off on the face off to bait more hits? Keep it classy...

They must be busy looking real hard for any disadvantages in the PS3 version, amirite.

 

[brandonh83]

And the answer is in what this topic has mainly been about. Fuck developer's who can't get minimum 30fps locked. I won't lower my standards any further as some fans are doing

I find myself agreeing with you now having put quality time into the game. I think it's a great game so far and for the most part, the framerate holds up when it needs to-- and believe me, there's been some intense battles since I'm playing it on Knight (hard) mode.

It's not hurting the experience, but next time I hope it's better. There are some screens where it almost hits 60fps, no joke, and some screens where I'd say around 15fps or so, maybe lower.

That only really happened in this really expansive shot of a lush forest though, and maybe a few times here and there.

 

[Amir0x]

yeah and even though I'm always talking in my straightforward no holding punches fashion, I completely understand individuals who don't think it's a game ending problem and still enjoy it anyway or even don't feel it's a big problem at all

I am only talking about how the framerate impacts my own individual enjoyment. I can't claim my standards are the same for everyone.

Clearly, I thought 30fps was about as low as anyone should go, but clearly fans are willing to make concessions if it's for a product they have been interested in

 

[Dennis]

I enjoyed Uncharted 2. Halo Reach, yeah, I'm having trouble getting into. The framerate is too frequently severe.

And the answer is in what this topic has mainly been about. Fuck developer's who can't get minimum 30fps locked. I won't lower my standards any further as some fans are doing

If lowering my standards means I get to play games like Halo: Reach, Uncharted 2 and Castlevania then so be it.

 

[x3sphere]

Multi GPU users aren't "framerate sensitive."

People that can notice slight hitches in framerates wouldn't put up with every single one of their games having some amount of stuttering as multi GPU users do.

The fact that you believe the framerate here is "consistent" when it clearly isn't anything of the sort further reinforces that notion.

Have you played it?

I'm well aware of the stuttering you are referring to, it's not as if I don't see it. I noticed it as soon as I made the jump from a 5870 to 5970. It can usually be mitigated by turning on vsync or triple buffering in my experience. If that wasn't the case I'd go back to a single card.

I just feel the drops in LoS aren't as bad as some people are making them out to be. I'm up to chapter 3 right now, and so far I can say the demo gives you a worst-case scenario of what to expect. If you can tolerate that, you should be fine.

 

[Amir0x]

If lowering my standards means I get to play games like Halo: Reach, Uncharted 2 and Castlevania then so be it.

Like I said, you're entitled to lower your standards - but don't come at me like Amir0x has his standards sooooo high it must be impossible to enjoy anything!

Most games I play are not choppy sub-30fps disasters, nor should they be. We're in 2010. Developers who can't get their games locked 30fps do not deserve my money

If you can tolerate that, you should be fine.

And as all the people who are generally complaining about the framerate are saying, they mostly can't

 

[Dennis]

I just feel the drops in LoS aren't as bad as some people are making them out to be.

Well, then you clearly have low standards. You are supposed to be ranting and raving about the framerate.

 

[Amir0x]

ITT: People have reading problems and don't realize how hilarious and kneejerk it makes them look

 

[Ledsen]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DW0HUZPk1o

Not sure of this can count since a video streaming over the net has the potential to lag, but by watching the glowing exp icon and numbers, you can get a good look at how consistent the frame-rate is. I didn't watch the whole video, so I might have missed a particular instance of frames dropping.

I personally saw no drops during the bog level when I played it. But again, I brought up the GTA4 issue with different hardware and I see no responses to that, but it is a variable that cannot be ignored.

There is no issue with "different hardware". Everyone agrees that LoS has terrible, constant sub-30 framerate, some people just don't care. You seem to be one of those people so you should be happy.

 

[Truespeed]

I enjoyed Uncharted 2. Halo Reach, yeah, I'm having trouble getting into. The framerate is too frequently severe.

And the answer is in what this topic has mainly been about. Fuck developer's who can't get minimum 30fps locked. I won't lower my standards any further as some fans are doing

When Criterion developed Burnout Paradise they had this application that would traverse the streets of Paradise city and identify any area's where the framerate dipped below 60 FPS. They would then either dial down the art assets, effects or optimize the program/engine so that the target frame rate would always be achieved.

This continuous integration check ensured that anything checked in would always be verified against the target framerate. As for why more developers don't follow this common sense approach is really bewildering. If your engine can't handle a complex scene then scale back the assets, remove effects or optimize your engine until it does. The total disregard for stable framerates is pretty sad especially when the solution is so obvious.

 

[Windom Earle]

Biggest framerate backlash this gen so far?

 

[Beth Cyra]

Well I finally got to play the PS3 version, it's better, I go about 15-30 seconds longer before frustratoin sets in.

 

[alr1ght]

Someone needs to do a comparison video to the trailers.

 

[ZeroRay]

Well the later chapters are a lot better than the first in terms of framerate.

Chapter 1 is borderline unplayable while chapter 2, while not good is much better.

 

[MMaRsu]

I didn't think the demo framerate was that bad at all. Will I enjoy the game?

 

[Amir0x]

I didn't think the demo framerate was that bad at all. Will I enjoy the game?

yes buy the game

although if the demo framerate wasn't bad to you, I shudder to think what framerate you would consider bad. the demo is fucking 24fps :lol

 

[MMaRsu]

yes buy the game

although if the demo framerate wasn't bad to you, I shudder to think what framerate you would consider bad. the demo is fucking 24fps :lol

Well Dead Rising 2 has worse framerate but I love that game so...

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

It's sad that people are glossing over the fact that the game looks jaw-dropping in spite of its framerate. I gave Mercury Steam a pass, but if this is the general reaction people are having then I guess I should revoke it.

 

[leng jai]

I enjoyed Uncharted 2. Halo Reach, yeah, I'm having trouble getting into. The framerate is too frequently severe.

And the answer is in what this topic has mainly been about. Fuck developer's who can't get minimum 30fps locked. I won't lower my standards any further as some fans are doing

The framerate in Halo Reach is downright offensive at times and has been hindering my enjoyment of the campaign. Surprising when you take into account its Bungie. I can't understand why cutscenes have such frequent hitches and the gameplay isn't much better. Its okay when theres not much going on but when things start heating up it frequently stutters/slows down. In that tank mission half of felt like it was at about 20fps which is not acceptable in my book.

 

[Amir0x]

It's sad that people are glossing over the fact that the game looks jaw-dropping in spite of its framerate. I gave Mercury Steam a pass, but if this is the general reaction people are having then I guess I should revoke it.

Because try as people might, one cannot disconnect the framerate from how "jaw dropping" something looks. Even if I might say the game has a pleasing art style and is pushing a lot of neat effects, much of it is for nothing if I have to suffer through a terrible framerate to see it. It's all a unified package, one is directly related to another.

Like we've all said, though, that doesn't mean the framerate has to be unacceptable for you or anyone else. It just is for me and the others commenting negatively about it

Well Dead Rising 2 has worse framerate but I love that game so...

That just means you basically have no standards for framerate. That's cool, but, it kinda makes entering a framerate discussion pointless. You don't even have low standards; you have no standards :lol

 

[Fun Factor]

Reach is close to unplayable now?

Don't forget Killzone with it's stuttering framerates here & there, what an ugly game that is.

Going back to play a superior looking Doom 2 at 120fps now.

 

[cgcg]

Never mind the framerate the aliasing in this game is horrendous. The demo hid it somewhat due to night time and rain but holy shit is it bad. Graphically it's pretty hideous so far. The Bog looks nasty with all these paper thin aliased objects hanging around and the level looks noisy/shimmery as heck. Currently up to the cave part and things haven't really improve much.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

Because try as people might, one cannot disconnect the framerate from how "jaw dropping" something looks. Even if I might say the game has a pleasing art style and is pushing a lot of neat effects, much of it is for nothing if I have to suffer through a terrible framerate to see it. It's all a unified package, one is directly related to another.

Like we've all said, though, that doesn't mean the framerate has to be unacceptable for you or anyone else. It just is for me and the others commenting negatively about it

Yeah, i'm just commenting on the situation. I find it playable enough, but if the majority of people are being turned off the game because of this then some concessions should have been made. People are now missing out on the game completely because of this, and that's sad for them - i'd gladly give up one or two cool effects to reach 30fps and have everyone happy.

It's times like this when I wish console games had PC-esque quality settings.

 

[MMaRsu]

That just means you basically have no standards for framerate. That's cool, but, it kinda makes entering a framerate discussion pointless. You don't even have low standards; you have no standards :lol

Yeah I guess I would agree. I know I love it when framerates are steady and 60fps preferably, however if the game itself is fun enough I can let slight framerate dips slide. And since Dead Rising 2 on consoles has a horrendous framerate, and I enjoyed the shit out of that game, I think I'll love Castlevania as well. Despite the framerate ^^.

 

[Amir0x]

Going back to play a superior looking Doom 2 at 120fps now.

Does your PC suck that much that you can only play Doom 2 @ 120fps?

I can play pretty much all modern games that are on both consoles and PC at well over 60fps, so I don't know why you're acting like we have to settle for inferior framerates that are sub-30

keep setting your standards lower, and developers will keep falling to meet them, and the games will be worse off for it.

If you don't notice shit framerates... that's really genuinely good for you. But on the other hand, if you do and just try to ignore them, then you probably shouldn't post bullshit.

Yeah, i'm just commenting on the situation. I find it playable enough, but if the majority of people are being turned off the game because of this then some concessions should have been made. People are now missing out on the game completely because of this, and that's sad for them - i'd gladly give up one or two cool effects to reach 30fps and have everyone happy.

It's times like this when I wish console games had PC-esque quality settings.

It's worth noting that I doubt the "majority" of people are making a stink about this. I respect that most people probably don't understand why their game is looking like a stuttery mess, and might probably condition themselves to even ignore it. And others still yet know what it is and simply don't let it impact their enjoyment: they have different standards than me and others.

I highly doubt though that the framerate in this case is going to impact sales one way or another. We're just a bunch of loud gamers frustrated with shitty development practices like this.

 

[Fun Factor]

yes buy the game

although if the demo framerate wasn't bad to you, I shudder to think what framerate you would consider bad. the demo is fucking 24fps :lol

Go replay GTA3/VC, Enclave, any of the Turok games, the PS2 ports of Deus Ex/No One Lives Forever/Giants Citizen Kabuto etc... for games that have bad framerates. Stuff that fluctuates anywhere from 2 frames per second to 30 with everything in between at any given moment
If the demo of LOS is any indication, it does not have a bad framerate to me. It looked like it was hovering at a near 30 constantly.

 

[Dennis]

You don't even have low standards; you have no standards :lol

:lol oh come on...

Don't forget Killzone with it's stuttering framerates here & there, what an ugly game that is.

Going back to play a superior looking Doom 2 at 120fps now.

I had no problem playing KZ2 either. If you are refering to KZ1, I never played that.

I have no problem with dropping some frames for better visuals. This is not 'low standards' - its emphasis on a different aspect of the graphics.

The decision to let Reach drop frames in exchange for better visuals was a brillant decision.

 

[Amir0x]

If the demo of LOS is any indication, it does not have a bad framerate to me. It looked like it was hovering at a near 30 constantly.

I guess if "at a near 30fps" is 24fps~ average, then yes. But all this means is you don't really care to make an issue out of framerates. That's cool, bro. So then I don't see why you're all bent out of shape about others who have some standards about framerates.

At this stage, it is unacceptable to have a game that is consistently sub-30fps, as Castlevania is. It just simply is. It's bad enough virtually no games on consoles this gen are 60fps, but if we're gonna start taking it up the ass for below 30 framerates I won't support it.

I have no problem with dropping some frames for better visuals. This is not 'low standards' - its emphasis on a different aspect of the graphics.

The decision to let Reach drop frames in exchange for better visuals was a brillant decision.

It's really a false choice. We're talking about getting a standard 30fps rate here, not even 60fps. There are a billion brilliant looking games this gen (a bunch that even look better than Reach) that don't drop frames as often as Reach, much less at the consistently atrocious level of Castlevania.

All this is is you making an excuse. Uncharted 2 is the best looking game this gen by a long country mile and its framerate is consistently 30.

They didn't decide "well we want good graphix let us let the framerate drop below 30", it's developer incompetence.

And I won't support developer incompetence.

 

[Angelcurio]

The framerate problem is really distracting. I was planning to preorder it, but after i played the demo i ended up not buying it. It´s really weird though, the game looks really good, and it´s not like the game is dropping to 15fps, but those 5 or 6 fps that the game drops make the game look really weird and uneasy.

The game should have been "Locked" 30fps.

 

[I NEED SCISSORS]

I personally think many (not all) of the problems in Reach are down to the checkpoint system. Watch some of the video analysis on Digital Foundry - it almost always drops 3-4 frames when it saves.

 

[Stallion Free]

I would have bought the game on PC where I could get 60 fps. It looks so pretty and I love the art, but the low fps does not feel good. Some of the cutscenes felt like they were running at 15 fps.

Consistently 30 fps isn't really good enough for me either. I hunger for 60.

 

[To Far Away Times]

Less than 60fps bothers me, 30fps or less even more so, but Shadow of the Colossus was my favorite game last gen. If the game is good enough I won't miss it due to a low frame rate.

 

[Randam_Hajile]

I'm playing the PS3 version on a 52" 1080p LG Plasma, and more notably annoying to me than the FPS was the constant flicker, which almost made me nauseous and really made the framerate seem much worse than it is. Unfortunately, Castlevania is one of many PS3 games that defaults to 720p, even when you have your settings to run all resolutions. After getting halfway through Chapter 2 and not being able to stand it anymore, I forced it to display at 1080p...

...and "Holy Crap" at the difference! Seriously, no more flicker at all! Not only that, but the graphics are so much smoother and the framerate looks WAY better. Even my wife, who usually doesn't notice these things, was shocked at just how much better it looks.

Since running it in 1080p, I've had very little issues with the framerate at all. Sure, it dips below 30 here and there and it's definitely not "stable", but the game is so much more playable now. I've been really liking the game from the beginning, but now that I've fixed the technical issues, it's made me enjoy playing it so much more. The box claims that it supports all four resolutions. Regardless of whether or not the game is natively 1080p, it looks and runs a whole lot better that way and I'd recommend it to anyone that can support it.

 

[jett]

I'm playing the PS3 version on a 52" 1080p LG Plasma, and more notably annoying to me than the FPS was the constant flicker, which almost made me nauseous and really made the framerate seem much worse than it is. Unfortunately, Castlevania is one of many PS3 games that defaults to 720p, even when you have your settings to run all resolutions. After getting halfway through Chapter 2 and not being able to stand it anymore, I forced it to display at 1080p...

...and "Holy Crap" at the difference! Seriously, no more flicker at all! Not only that, but the graphics are so much smoother and the framerate looks WAY better. Even my wife, who usually doesn't notice these things, was shocked at just how much better it looks.

Since running it in 1080p, I've had very little issues with the framerate at all. Sure, it dips below 30 here and there and it's definitely not "stable", but the game is so much more playable now. I've been really liking the game from the beginning, but now that I've fixed the technical issues, it's made me enjoy playing it so much more. The box claims that it supports all four resolutions. Regardless of whether or not the game is natively 1080p, it looks and runs a whole lot better that way and I'd recommend it to anyone that can support it.

I'm sorry to inform you it's all in your head. Granted it's the demo that I just ran, but I just did forced to 1080p and the framerate is exactly the same. The flickering might be an issue with your TV though, no flickering here on any resolution.

 

[forrest]

They didn't decide "well we want good graphix let us let the framerate drop below 30", it's developer incompetence.

And I won't support developer incompetence.

I want to take this stance against Bethesda and their animation department. These folks need some serious help!

Honestly I hope Castlevania sells well and Mercurystream takes a lot of heat over the technical side of the game. I hope this in turn makes them invest in the engine team and programming team.

 

[Aeana]

I'm sorry to inform you it's all in your head. Granted it's the demo that I just ran, but I just did forced to 1080p and the framerate is exactly the same. The flickering might be an issue with your TV though, no flickering here on any resolution.

I had a similar experience when I tried what he said. The demo made me feel ill, but forcing it to 1080p seems to prevent that. I agree, though - the framerate is definitely the same. I wonder if anything else changes that might be causing the change. If it's all in my head, I guess that's fine, too... anything to keep me from feeling sick.

 

[SpokkX]

When is the Digital Foundry comparison up?

I need to know which version to get. I prefer 360 but if PS3 really has better framerate then I will go for that version

 

[S1kkZ]

wow. in the third area now (right after the demo ends): horrible framerate issues (constant studder) and huge visual downgrade compared to the first area (heavy aliasing, shitty low res shadows). how can reviews ignore this? edit: ok, now they use a shitty low-res bitmap as a big part of the background...awesome.

playing on the ps3, i cannot imagine that the 360 version runs worse. that would be near unplayable. thank god i only rented the game. note: i am not that framerate sensitive.

 

[MacBosse]

They didn't decide "well we want good graphix let us let the framerate drop below 30", it's developer incompetence.

And I won't support developer incompetence.

I was reading your post when it suddenly hit me. Did you just call Bungie a incompetent developer?

Ok dude got no clue. Ignore.

Oh and comparing Reach and Uncharted is ... yeah. Both are games sure.

 

[-tetsuo-]

All this is is you making an excuse. Uncharted 2 is the best looking game this gen by a long country mile and its framerate is consistently 30.

They didn't decide "well we want good graphix let us let the framerate drop below 30", it's developer incompetence.

And I won't support developer incompetence.

To be fair, Uncharted doesn't get as busy on screen as Halo does. The most active part of UC 2 was probably escaping the village and that has nothing on the multiple dropship, multiple vehicle and multiple enemy clusters that happen through missions in Reach.

 

[Amir0x]

I was reading your post when it suddenly hit me. Did you just call Bungie a incompetent developer?

Ok dude got no clue. Ignore.

Oh and comparing Reach and Uncharted is ... yeah. Both are games sure.

Bungie makes good games, but on the visual front, they are not at all impressive. Halo 3 was mediocre even at the time it came out; it was consistently lambasted from its rather unimpressive technology. We're talking purely tech here, not art style. And ODST, same thing.

Reach is finally when they decided to join this generation with some of the effects we've come to expect from top tier titles, but it's still sub-HD, and the framerate is often just terrible. That is developer incompetence. There are many other developers who have no problem making amazing games that are genuinely HD and run at a consistently above 30 framerate

I apologize if that is an affront to your Bungie fanboyism, but the facts are the facts. sub-HD, sub-30 games are not the mark of a developer who has no flaws. It's the mark of developer incompetence, at least as it regards technology for the engine.

 

[Truant]

I agree. Reach looks like what Halo 3 should have looked like three years ago.

 

[Totobeni]

When is the Digital Foundry comparison up?

btw , is DF the only guys who do comparisons ?( I know about Lens of truth but they are junk too ).

because , after their Halo: Reach's tech analysis article ( saying it's "smooth" framerate don't impact the experience ) and some other PS360 comparisons ( and what MazingerDUDE said about their flawed pixel counting before ) I really don't trust them.

 

[dark10x]

Don't forget Killzone with it's stuttering framerates here & there, what an ugly game that is.

Going back to play a superior looking Doom 2 at 120fps now.

Killzone 1 did have an unplayable framerate. Killzone 2, however, was generally very smooth.

Halo Reach and Killzone 2 generally run at a smooth 30 fps. In some cases, the framerate will dip (especially with Reach), but more often than not, you're at 30 fps. Moments where the framerate dives are still very annoying, but it does not represent the average performance. Castelvania, however, has framerate issues 100% of the time. Even when it's above 30 fps, you end up with awful judder. It never looks smooth at any time.

I was able to deal with it in the demo somewhat, but once the camera starts whipping around as it does in the full game, things just fall apart. It just looks bad in motion.

 

[NemesisPrime]

When Criterion developed Burnout Paradise they had this application that would traverse the streets of Paradise city and identify any area's where the framerate dipped below 60 FPS. They would then either dial down the art assets, effects or optimize the program/engine so that the target frame rate would always be achieved.

This continuous integration check ensured that anything checked in would always be verified against the target framerate. As for why more developers don't follow this common sense approach is really bewildering. If your engine can't handle a complex scene then scale back the assets, remove effects or optimize your engine until it does. The total disregard for stable framerates is pretty sad especially when the solution is so obvious.

Racing games are totally different from sandbox-like FPS games.

 

[NemesisPrime]

btw , is DF the only guys who do comparisons ?( I know about Lens of truth but they are junk too ).

because , after their Halo: Reach's tech analysis article ( saying it's "smooth" framerate don't impact the experience ) and some other PS360 comparisons ( and what MazingerDUDE said about their flawed pixel counting before ) I really don't trust them.

Crybaby.

DF is *the* place for comparisons. Case clsoed.