Astral Dog
Member
This is a very good analysis,how does it compare to the 360 game?
Wonderful 101 bothered me a lot, but this seems much better
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Digital Foundry: Hands-on with Bayonetta 2
- Thread starter mocoworm
- Start date
This is a very good analysis,how does it compare to the 360 game?
Wonderful 101 bothered me a lot, but this seems much better
dark10x,
First of all i want to thank you for taking the time to answer. I know i did say i wouldn't be part of this conversation anymore, and i still believe that. I'll just comment on your very detailed post and i'll be off.
So let's break this thing down.
I want to let you know that i have no warm feelings on DF. That doesn't come from disagreeing in this particular game's analysis, and of course it doesn't mean we can't discuss about it like normal people.
This analysis, about Bayonetta 2, was just the trigger event that got me thinking i should directly question DF, as i have not been a fan of your analyses for a long time.
You can ask me, 'then why are you here?' Bear with me, we'll get to that.
There are many reasons i find DF as an information provider to not be accurate.
First of all it's because it provides technical analyses on software, that the average gamer can't do by themselves, which is perfectly fine, but also it's very dangerous in case someone with system preferences might dilute the results. Which brings us to another problem with DF. Monopoly.
Call it gut reaction, or anything else, call it nurture or nature, i always look at monopoly with a bit of suspicion.
And DF is a monopoly on that matter, having managed to be the one information provider of game performance, with no one on the opposite side, no one to question DF's findings with findings of their own. I'm sorry, but logic and history scream to us to not accept information when it comes from just one source, and that's how i deal with it.
Another problem is the quality of the data provided. I find it unacceptable that in this day and age, an information provider that deals exclusively with analyzing gameplay performance, share their findings with bad quality 30fps youtube videos.
It's like saying, 'this video has drops of quality but sorry, you don't get to witness it, just take my word for it.' No, i'm really sorry, it doesn't work like this.
One yet reason i have to be distrustful, is the fact that i have witnessed, many times, DF giving a slap on the wrist on certain software, that have real issues the public should be aware of before making a purchase, while other times being inquisitorially harsh over simple performance issues no one really notices. And this paragraph actually brings us to that question you might have had in your head earlier: 'then why are you here?'
I'm here because i actually read and watch the DF analyses, and actually very carefully. Why? Because of course information is vital, and if you can filter it you can find important information (almost) everywhere.
In a sense, i'm another guy that gives DF clicks. I read, i watch, i analyze, i cut off the fat and i eat the important part.
Unlike many in this thread that jumped in conclusions just to feed their egotistical delusion that Bayonetta does not deserve to exist in a Nintendo platform, or even worse does not deserve to exist at all, i actually read the analysis, very carefully, and i was in this very thread urging people to read it before they post. That's why i'm here.
With that long introduction, i want to tell you that i'm a freak among peers. I am that annoying feller that actually sees the performance issues and points them out, being a fun breaker. I see the dips on the Gamersyde videos. You can bet everything you have that can count each and every one of them, and anyway, i said it when i posted them that there are visible dips there.
But dips from 60fps to 45fps is not just dropping, and i can swear there are no 15fps drops in any of the Gamersyde videos. 5fps, yes, 10fps? In some extreme occasions, on video 5 as you mentioned, yeah, ok.
But 15fps drop almost 100% of the time as you claim? Nop, no way.
There are many here on GAF saying the same thing, that they see the videos, maybe see the drops but nothing severe and certainly not all the time. I'm sorry but i don't buy that the preview videos show a part of the game that runs smoother while hiding us the part of the game that doesn't, or that the game has performance issues 100% of the time. I just don't.
As i mentioned before, there is no proof to back this up. What i see is a 30fps streaming video with a graph running at the bottom. It is impossible for anyone to judge by themselves if what the graph is showing happens on screen at the same time.
And yet it is more demanding than other areas you show on the video where the graph goes crazy.
I never said i expected stable 60fps, or that i see stable 60fps on the videos. If anything it's a PG game. They see OTT action and spectacle more important than excellent performance, and as a matter of fact, not one of their games has perfect performance, but as you said right here and as i read in the analysis, it doesn't change the fact that the game is awesome (just repeating it so maybe some who were here just to shitpost see it).
You can bet i played MGR:R. And even while indeed it had its issues (on console) it wasn't that bothersome. The thing is that the analysis clearly implies that Bayonetta 1 and MGR:R can be seen as the better examples while Bayonetta 2 is inferior to them. Now you claim that Bayonetta 2's performance is very, very similar (quoting you) to MGR:R. That changes a lot.
Even though MGR:R had serious issues especially in blade mode, its performance never became overly distracting or game breaking.
I think that the fact that those two are very, very similar should be made clear, because the analysis itself drew a far worse picture than this right now. Consider this.
W101 clearly had performance issues, but in the end it all was because the engine had to calculate all that geometry, their rigs and their position at any given second, and while it was just another action game with one 'entity' swapping styles to beat through enemies, that 'entity' often was more than 50 fully rigged and animated characters. It was a mistake to try something so ambitious, and i think that it would have trouble on any current hardware. If PG had a rotating camera, something that many were critical on, i bet that the performance would be even worse.
That said, it's still playable, and a fine example of game design by itself.
I only have 2 comments on that last part of yours.
1) The fact that Bayonetta 2 performs much, much better than W101 should be made clear too, it is very important that it is made clear.
2) Imo, the timing to make a W101 analysis was just bad. It should be done last year, now it will just detract sales on a game that is currently hyped because of the Bayonetta 2 release, sales the game and the developer needs and deserves, but also it was a wasted opportunity for a Bayonetta 1 WiiU analysis. Just awful timing.
That's all i had to say.
Take care.
First of all i want to thank you for taking the time to answer. I know i did say i wouldn't be part of this conversation anymore, and i still believe that. I'll just comment on your very detailed post and i'll be off.
So let's break this thing down.
I want to let you know that i have no warm feelings on DF. That doesn't come from disagreeing in this particular game's analysis, and of course it doesn't mean we can't discuss about it like normal people.
This analysis, about Bayonetta 2, was just the trigger event that got me thinking i should directly question DF, as i have not been a fan of your analyses for a long time.
You can ask me, 'then why are you here?' Bear with me, we'll get to that.
There are many reasons i find DF as an information provider to not be accurate.
First of all it's because it provides technical analyses on software, that the average gamer can't do by themselves, which is perfectly fine, but also it's very dangerous in case someone with system preferences might dilute the results. Which brings us to another problem with DF. Monopoly.
Call it gut reaction, or anything else, call it nurture or nature, i always look at monopoly with a bit of suspicion.
And DF is a monopoly on that matter, having managed to be the one information provider of game performance, with no one on the opposite side, no one to question DF's findings with findings of their own. I'm sorry, but logic and history scream to us to not accept information when it comes from just one source, and that's how i deal with it.
Another problem is the quality of the data provided. I find it unacceptable that in this day and age, an information provider that deals exclusively with analyzing gameplay performance, share their findings with bad quality 30fps youtube videos.
It's like saying, 'this video has drops of quality but sorry, you don't get to witness it, just take my word for it.' No, i'm really sorry, it doesn't work like this.
One yet reason i have to be distrustful, is the fact that i have witnessed, many times, DF giving a slap on the wrist on certain software, that have real issues the public should be aware of before making a purchase, while other times being inquisitorially harsh over simple performance issues no one really notices. And this paragraph actually brings us to that question you might have had in your head earlier: 'then why are you here?'
I'm here because i actually read and watch the DF analyses, and actually very carefully. Why? Because of course information is vital, and if you can filter it you can find important information (almost) everywhere.
In a sense, i'm another guy that gives DF clicks. I read, i watch, i analyze, i cut off the fat and i eat the important part.
Unlike many in this thread that jumped in conclusions just to feed their egotistical delusion that Bayonetta does not deserve to exist in a Nintendo platform, or even worse does not deserve to exist at all, i actually read the analysis, very carefully, and i was in this very thread urging people to read it before they post. That's why i'm here.
With that long introduction, i want to tell you that i'm a freak among peers. I am that annoying feller that actually sees the performance issues and points them out, being a fun breaker. I see the dips on the Gamersyde videos. You can bet everything you have that can count each and every one of them, and anyway, i said it when i posted them that there are visible dips there.
But dips from 60fps to 45fps is not just dropping, and i can swear there are no 15fps drops in any of the Gamersyde videos. 5fps, yes, 10fps? In some extreme occasions, on video 5 as you mentioned, yeah, ok.
But 15fps drop almost 100% of the time as you claim? Nop, no way.
There are many here on GAF saying the same thing, that they see the videos, maybe see the drops but nothing severe and certainly not all the time. I'm sorry but i don't buy that the preview videos show a part of the game that runs smoother while hiding us the part of the game that doesn't, or that the game has performance issues 100% of the time. I just don't.
As i mentioned before, there is no proof to back this up. What i see is a 30fps streaming video with a graph running at the bottom. It is impossible for anyone to judge by themselves if what the graph is showing happens on screen at the same time.
And yet it is more demanding than other areas you show on the video where the graph goes crazy.
I never said i expected stable 60fps, or that i see stable 60fps on the videos. If anything it's a PG game. They see OTT action and spectacle more important than excellent performance, and as a matter of fact, not one of their games has perfect performance, but as you said right here and as i read in the analysis, it doesn't change the fact that the game is awesome (just repeating it so maybe some who were here just to shitpost see it).
You can bet i played MGR:R. And even while indeed it had its issues (on console) it wasn't that bothersome. The thing is that the analysis clearly implies that Bayonetta 1 and MGR:R can be seen as the better examples while Bayonetta 2 is inferior to them. Now you claim that Bayonetta 2's performance is very, very similar (quoting you) to MGR:R. That changes a lot.
Even though MGR:R had serious issues especially in blade mode, its performance never became overly distracting or game breaking.
I think that the fact that those two are very, very similar should be made clear, because the analysis itself drew a far worse picture than this right now. Consider this.
W101 clearly had performance issues, but in the end it all was because the engine had to calculate all that geometry, their rigs and their position at any given second, and while it was just another action game with one 'entity' swapping styles to beat through enemies, that 'entity' often was more than 50 fully rigged and animated characters. It was a mistake to try something so ambitious, and i think that it would have trouble on any current hardware. If PG had a rotating camera, something that many were critical on, i bet that the performance would be even worse.
That said, it's still playable, and a fine example of game design by itself.
I only have 2 comments on that last part of yours.
1) The fact that Bayonetta 2 performs much, much better than W101 should be made clear too, it is very important that it is made clear.
2) Imo, the timing to make a W101 analysis was just bad. It should be done last year, now it will just detract sales on a game that is currently hyped because of the Bayonetta 2 release, sales the game and the developer needs and deserves, but also it was a wasted opportunity for a Bayonetta 1 WiiU analysis. Just awful timing.
That's all i had to say.
Take care.
In this video, the framerate behaves very similarly to the 360 version :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5T93Nyzkq0
Anyway, it looks smooth to me, I'm out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5T93Nyzkq0
Anyway, it looks smooth to me, I'm out.
Astral Dog
Member
So THATs why we havent heard Moon River !
Kind of disappointing. One of the reasons I like Platinum is because they value framerate. I would trade graphics in this game for framerate. Unsteady framerate in action games can get irritating. It's also very disappointing how this is 720p in 2014, but that's not really Platinum's fault.
Youtube comments are great. Some guy was saying DF is shit because they're testing the framerate of a "pre-alpha" game when it's quite clear that what DF has is most likely the final build.
Looks like marketing labeling all demos as "pre-alpha"at trade shows and stuff is paying off...
Looks like marketing labeling all demos as "pre-alpha"at trade shows and stuff is paying off...
Theognosis
Member
Duh.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Honestly, from the framerate test, this pretty much looks like it runs in the mid to low 40s. It's disappointing for sure but the game still looks great and I'm sure it plays well. So overall, success but hoping for better next try 
Combining those two statements is a bit weird considering not a single of PlatinumGames' releases has a steady framerate.
They're awesome and I love them though.
It makes sense when you realize most people are still salty about it being on the Wii U because the ride never ends
Well, vanquish did have a pretty steady framerate. Steady mid 20's at 1024x720.
Theognosis
Member
Ooh shit, I'm excited.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
What's your definition of "steady" then?
I extend this question to anyone in this thread that finds this analysis unacceptable, or even disappointing.
What are some examples of console games the run to your standards? I mean even fighting games have lagged on last gen hardware while trying to maintain a certain standard of visual quality. and that's a genre where individual frames actually matter.
because even back on PS2 when 60 Hz games were the norm even some of the most popular ones had drops. (sup ZoE 2)
I think you either have the amazing set pieces that seem to be the most memorable parts of these games for alot of people, or you fight enemies on the same floating platform for 100 floors ala Bloody Palace. It just seems unrealistic to me to expect both at all times given the history of these games
Theognosis
Member
Here's an example of a rock solid framerate in 60 fps.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TVVtDpUa5Jk
But that's not the point. The point is Platinum is NOT known to make games on consoles that have steady framerates and we should expect the same from Bayonetta 2. This however does not make their games unplayable or anything like that. I'm actually arguing that the philosophy of making games over-the-top to the fullest extent at the expense of framerate consistency makes Platinum games very special and unique.
Alcoholikaust
Member
What a buzzkill.
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
Given the simple look of the game, and only having 8 characters running around, I don't think it should be hard to achieve.
TyrantGuardian
Member
So you are saying the graphs are completely made up by DF in order to push an agenda? Is that actually what you are saying here? Because it seems like it to me, but maybe I misunderstand your point.
Also why should DF care about the timing of a W101 analysis? It's not their job to sell the game, it's Nintendo/PG's job. This is one of the more bizarre posts I've read on GAF in a while.
(Holy shit at the GIF above. Hnnnnnngh!)
Pretty awful DF article, all told. They spent about half the time comparing it to Wonderful 101 rather than its predecessor on Xbox 360, and whatever happened to them listing the lowest frame rate, average frame rate, etc? Those were useful metrics for gauging overall performance without having to sit through the video.
Pretty disappointing, overall. Without watching the video, all this article tells me is that it "runs like Metal Gear Rising's approximation of 60 FPS", which is more than fine by me.
All they've done is throw up a video with the raw data and then discussed their findings pretty vaguely.
Pretty disappointing, overall. Without watching the video, all this article tells me is that it "runs like Metal Gear Rising's approximation of 60 FPS", which is more than fine by me.
All they've done is throw up a video with the raw data and then discussed their findings pretty vaguely.
R
Retro_
Unconfirmed Member
Alright. I just didn't get what the expectations were
I'm not too familiar with the technical aspect of how these games are designed, but from my experience drops like this aren't the exception, but the norm. So I don't get why people are getting bent out of shape about it. I can't think of a fast paced action game with busy visual effects that performs like a Super Mario or a Mario Kart game, which are alot simpler visually in comparison
Refreshment.01
Member
So acting like an agent of objectivity while acusing Digital Foundry of not abiding to the laws of fair play whitouth providing zero evidience or at least a strong reasoning, example or case scenario.
Speaking objectively? Was Digital Foundry brought into questioning for the analysis of the other Platinum games? Doesn't seem so objective when the over reaction stems from the platform exclusive article when in the other cases no qualms were made. Think that speaks volumes for potential bias.
The game is controversial for various reasons and it's a honey pot that flies with agendas like to circle over. One side is composed of those seriously disapointed that the game became a Wii U exclusive, because how dare the Wii U get a decent 3rd party exclusive even when it's 100% founded by Nintendo.
The other group of interest is the one that explains your curiosity Retro. As you know the Wii U is criticised because it brought up a marginable improvement over 7th generation console performance 7 years later. There are people to whom this type of criticism is not acceptableble. Bayonetta 2 was one of those "exhibit A" cases to disapprove the notion that the Wii U is comparable to 7th gen consoles.
The reasoning could be sumed up as: "Well if Bayonetta 2 is pushing a more complex scene each frame than Bayonetta 1 in the 360 (which moves @ 40ish fps most of the time) and it does so at 60 fps then there are not doubts that the Wii U is well above the 7th generation consoles". Btw, this reasoning failed to contemplate important aspects like the developers experience (Bayo was 1 of the first Platinum games in HD consoles) and the improvemets made to an engine across the life span of a console cycle. Yet for some reason people that subscribed to the quoted notion tend to forget to point that out.
What led people to believe that Bayo 2 hovered at 60 fps most of the time was in the first place that the 360 version flowed at 40/50 most of the time and that the bite size glimpses of specific areas of Bayo 2 at trade shows or press events seemed more fluid. Funny enough, most of the judgements made about how well the Bayo 2 moved used as reference the Bayo 1 performance analysis made by Digital Foundry. XD
But now, it seems the game runs similar or maybe worse than the first game so now the stance has changed: "Nah we didn't expect to run as smoothly after all it's a Platinum games trade mark".
Disclaimer: im not saying there wasn't any people that suspected the game would not reach the 60 ballpark, yet the ones that used Bayonetta 2 as a demostration of the Wii U prowess over 7th gen consoles were banking on near 60 fps. Since it was the silver bullet that proved their point.
Speaking objectively? Was Digital Foundry brought into questioning for the analysis of the other Platinum games? Doesn't seem so objective when the over reaction stems from the platform exclusive article when in the other cases no qualms were made. Think that speaks volumes for potential bias.
Here's the explanation:
The game is controversial for various reasons and it's a honey pot that flies with agendas like to circle over. One side is composed of those seriously disapointed that the game became a Wii U exclusive, because how dare the Wii U get a decent 3rd party exclusive even when it's 100% founded by Nintendo.
The other group of interest is the one that explains your curiosity Retro. As you know the Wii U is criticised because it brought up a marginable improvement over 7th generation console performance 7 years later. There are people to whom this type of criticism is not acceptableble. Bayonetta 2 was one of those "exhibit A" cases to disapprove the notion that the Wii U is comparable to 7th gen consoles.
The reasoning could be sumed up as: "Well if Bayonetta 2 is pushing a more complex scene each frame than Bayonetta 1 in the 360 (which moves @ 40ish fps most of the time) and it does so at 60 fps then there are not doubts that the Wii U is well above the 7th generation consoles". Btw, this reasoning failed to contemplate important aspects like the developers experience (Bayo was 1 of the first Platinum games in HD consoles) and the improvemets made to an engine across the life span of a console cycle. Yet for some reason people that subscribed to the quoted notion tend to forget to point that out.
What led people to believe that Bayo 2 hovered at 60 fps most of the time was in the first place that the 360 version flowed at 40/50 most of the time and that the bite size glimpses of specific areas of Bayo 2 at trade shows or press events seemed more fluid. Funny enough, most of the judgements made about how well the Bayo 2 moved used as reference the Bayo 1 performance analysis made by Digital Foundry. XD
But now, it seems the game runs similar or maybe worse than the first game so now the stance has changed: "Nah we didn't expect to run as smoothly after all it's a Platinum games trade mark".
Disclaimer: im not saying there wasn't any people that suspected the game would not reach the 60 ballpark, yet the ones that used Bayonetta 2 as a demostration of the Wii U prowess over 7th gen consoles were banking on near 60 fps. Since it was the silver bullet that proved their point.
This thread got me thinking that devs could include 50hz sync in their console games for people with PAL tv's (assuming game's clock is independent of screen update frequency). I think all PAL HD tv's can still sync to 50hz. I think bayonetta 2 is a great example for a game that could benefit from a feature like this.