• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Digital Foundry vs. Dead Rising 3

Status
Not open for further replies.
This is disheartening if true. The only reason I was leaning towards xb1 was because there were 3 games I wanted to play on the console including this one. If this gets confirmed, then I may have to push Xbox purchase aside until titanfall. I don't have cable to a nifty UI won't do me any good.

There's a chance there will be a patch Day 1 for some of the framerate issues and texture loads. Probably won't know about that until late this week at the earliest.

Edit: Just an assumption after what has happened with CoD: Ghosts.
 
Argh...

I'm ok with the resolution (even though it's looking REALLY bad in those pictures, specially with those textures and weird pop in effect) , but that framerate is hard to swallow xD

This definitely should be delayed... Something so jaggy, and with a framerate that bad must be an eye sore to play :(
 
Polygon will definitely be giving this a
untitled0aalf.png

7WEhvXQ.png


It definitely dips under 20.


3 months ago:


2 months ago:


Today:

Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)

These posts has anointed this thread as the best one this week.
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)

I waited hours FOR THIS?

Man, I've defended you in the past. No gameplay footage of this game is averaging 28 to 30 fps. None that I've seen anyway. Yes it's less shit now. But it's still clearly shit.

It's still the only game I'm aware of on Xbox One that is running *worse* than equivalent titles last gen. Defend the system as much as you feel it needs.

Do not defend Capcom Vancouver for releasing a game that's running at a lower frame rate and the same resolution with poorer anti aliasing, than the original game in the series, which was a launch window title for the Xbox 360.

If you think this shit is acceptable, you will get more of it.

Would you like Ryse to have these framerates? Answer honestly please.
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

anigif_enhanced-buzz-20908-1363185894-4.gif


He is coming...
 
I love that they use XO to abbreviate the Xbox 1 because it looks like a surprised angry / in pain face emoticon.


Like it would be my reaction to seeing my new $500 console drop to 10 FPS in a 720p game that looks like that: XO
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

i5xikjcms7cvds4kit.gif
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

it's still just as shitty and that with MS helping them out and also with them getting rid of the dynamic resolution

I understand that your usual act is write an essay, blame other users of being trolls, play the victim card, sit on an imaginary high horse and ride away into the sunset (at least pretend to but to later return and rinse repeat the cycle)...but the game is not running well..all you're proving now is it never did. It also proves that you are a hypocrite.
 
I can't tell if this is a result of Capcom being incompetent, or Microsoft severely gimping the Xbox One hardware and SDK.

Probably a combination of all of the above.

But I can't imagine any open world game playing nice with the XB1 memory set up.

Are there any reports about how Assassin's Creed IV and Watch_Dogs are doing on XB1? I'm expecting 720p for those as well.
 
The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

Digital Foundry said:
The statement from the team is that a locked 30fps is targeted here, but in the build we saw there's a huge gap to be bridged in this regard; drops to 20fps are consistent and sustained when outdoors, with 16fps being our record low during some of the biggest explosions.

The game is absolutely not averaging 28-30fps. That is not open to subjective option. Did you watch the video in question? The game only mantained a steady 30fps when indoors and with few to no enemies on screen. As soon as you get zombies to fight, the game drops dramatically to the mid-low 20s.

ZoduvVu.png
 
Probably a combination of all of the above.

But I can't imagine any open world game playing nice with the XB1 memory set up.

Are there any reports about how Assassin's Creed IV and Watch_Dogs are doing on XB1? I'm expecting 720p for those as well.

I think AC was confirmed to be sub-1080p the other day.

Have we even seen Watch Dogs demonstrated on an XB1? All I can remember is PC and PS4.
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)

So let me get this straight, As long as it's better than an older build it's OK, it doesn't matter now that is having framerate issues because it's better than before?

And no, it's not 30fps with some framerate drops, there's long parts of the video with bad framerate with an occasional Ryse to 30fps
 
Probably a combination of all of the above.

But I can't imagine any open world game playing nice with the XB1 memory set up.

Are there any reports about how Assassin's Creed IV and Watch_Dogs are doing on XB1? I'm expecting 720p for those as well.

I don't think we're going to see anything about Watch Dogs for a while.

There hasn't been anything on AC4 yet is seems like. Not sure when the embargoes are up for those versions.

Open world games will do ok (not as well, but ok). Devs will just have to work with the bottleneck in a different approach. Possibly less draw distance to ease up on texture loads.

Is this the final release version of the game?

Probably not. We don't know how far along the build at the event is necessarily or when exactly the event took place.

However, there were some noticeable dips in the build shown off at IGN, which I assume was a near final build. They could fix the problems through a patch if that was the final build, but having the framerate drop when nothing is happening (in the London event build) doesn't bode well for the stability of the game or the claims from CV that they've had 30 fps locked for a while now.
 
The game is absolutely not averaging 28-30fps. That is not open to subjective option. Did you watch the video in question? The game only mantained a steady 30fps when indoors and with few to no enemies on screen. As soon as you get zombies to fight, the game drops dramatically to the mid-low 20s.

More importantly, it maintains this low level during the action, when solid framerates are most desirable. Not recognizing this borders on denying reality. It's a shame, they should have just delayed the game for another 6 months. The XBO has enough good launch games without it.
 
720p is one thing, and if it was a decision made to have a minimum of 30FPS, then I kind of get it. But it can't even maintain 30FPS? What a fucking joke. I've had enough 720p, no-AA, sub-30FPS games last gen. It's why I was looking forward to the next gen. But this game is literally the same shit, just with more zombies.

To be fair to the XBO though, I put the blame on the devs. I'm confident the XBO is powerful enough to run a game like this at at least a rock solid 30 FPS.
 
So let me get this straight, As long as it's better than an older build it's OK, it doesn't matter now that is having framerate issues because it's better than before?

And no, it's not 30fps with some framerate drops, there's long parts of the video with bad framerate with an occasional Ryse to 30fps

Iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
 
Wasn't this supposed to be locked silky smooth 30 fps? Thought that was the reason why it went down to 720p. But this....this just is a technical mess. Texture streaming bugs, bad average fps, all @ 720p. Guess ya gotta wait for that firmware update (or performance patch down the road).
 
So let me get this straight, As long as it's better than an older build it's OK, it doesn't matter now that is having framerate issues because it's better than before?

And no, it's not 30fps with some framerate drops, there's long parts of the video with bad framerate with an occasional Ryseto 30fps

54afbf53_1617295_i_see_what_you_did_there_holysmurf_super_RE_Sharenator_Community_UNITE-s444x475-150637-580.jpeg
 
More importantly, it maintains this low level during the action, when solid framerates are most desirable. Not recognizing this borders on denying reality. It's a shame, they should have just delayed the game for another 6 months. The XBO has enough good launch games without it.

This falls in line very well with Kotaku's rumor that pegged Microsoft was six months behind on game development.
 
SenjutsuSage, what do you say to an ENTIRE THREAD of people reacting to simple hypocrisy? God, just admit your biases.

When I was caught for my editing fuck up, the second I got on GAF to post again I admitted my mistake, apologized and said Evilore was right for what he did. It's called taking responsibility for your fuck ups. You're being a hypocrite, you know you're being a hypocrite, yet you think we're all too fucking stupid to also parse that out? Part of being an adult is just admitting when we're a little too involved in the muck and let ourselves get carried away. We all make mistakes. People understand over time the human element. You're making it impossible.

Let me break it down for you Senjutsu using your own words quoted earlier in this topic:

3 months

Dead Rising 3 is another game I think looks pretty damn awesome, too. It's only issue is the framerate, but it's got a lot going on I think it's a very good looking game. Great lighting, solid textures, very packed and busy environments, lots of zombies on screen, open world, no loading times etc. But of course all of this becomes far less impressive if they can't fix the framerate.

2 months

hope the stuff about the clock speed update on the CPU and the focus they seem to be placing on stable frame-rates hold true, because literally nothing would be more annoying than iffy framerate in games.

Today

For the action and sheer number of enemies I saw on screen, the framerate is more than acceptable.

Not only isn't the framerate stable or even fucking close, but it's miserable at times. Yes, it is improved from where we were at before, but by your own previous standards, there is "nothing more iffy" then an unstable framerate, which Dead Rising 3 factually is. There's no debate about it. It's a fact. So you either accept your own words, or deny it. Everyone now knows the truth.
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

ifVCThk8kNzTn.gif


This salt may have framerate issues, but at least it has some nice motion blur...
 
Jesus Christ. Senjustsu. No need to defend the indefensible. It's ok to admit DR3's performance is crappy. Doesn't mean it still can't be fun to play.

The world ain't going to end if your criticize something related to the XBO.
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

IlZ2zyM.gif
 
Your desperation is pretty pathetic, and the same goes for anyone else pretty much making a fool out of themselves if they're actually batshit insane enough to believe the performance of Dead Rising 3 right now is anything remotely close to what it was like back then. Do you even realize what the heck Dead Rising 3 performed like back then? The performance was downright atrocious. We aren't talking a few drops here and there. It was almost 100% unplayable, even with very little happening on screen. The current state of the game is a pretty big ass leapfrog over the older builds. The performance, on average, is in the 28-30fps range in most gameplay scenarios according to that 14 minute DF video that they feel covers a wider range of gameplay scenarios.

Months ago you could barely encounter a small number of enemies without performance completely grinding to a halt. Now you can literally encounter seemingly hundreds of enemies and mow them down with pretty solid performance, with some drops here and there, but never to the point of being completely unplayable, particularly because it rebounds pretty nicely heading right back up to the higher performance numbers. So, nice try at the troll, but it's a pretty epic fucking fail on your part for the simple fact that it showcases an almost laughable level of ignorance regarding how far this game has come performance wise compared to 3 or 2 months ago. But, who am I kidding? Of course some of the trolls occupying this thread know Dead Rising's performance today can't be compared to the way it was months ago, but if they admitted that much, what ever else would they have to say? :)



Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

And with that, I'm done here. All people have to do is watch the videos and judge for themselves with the footage available online today of the final build of the game in action. Know why the people talking shit didn't have the balls to post these older videos showing what performance of the older builds were really like? Because it would show they were lying. Simple as that.

Stahp. God, just stahp. There is no excuse...NONE...for this shitty effort. 720p and dips like this is not acceptable on a "next gen", 500$ machine. It is indefensible.

It doesn't matter who is at fault. It is gross.
 
Y
Yea, please use your head. The performance of Dead Rising 3 today is absolutely nothing like what it was back then. I don't know who you guys think you're fooling with this act of yours that pretty much lives and dies on the need to hide clear evidence of what old dead rising 3 looked like, but you're comparing video evidence on DF that hovered more around 28-30fps on average in their longer video to this...?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btc39u9MQvo

There's even moments when the player is by himself, not surrounded by much of anything, where the performance is down a ditch.

Yet another video of the game at Gamescom, played by IGN. Anybody who watches these and can seriously come away claiming that Dead Rising 3 right now performs anywhere quite as bad as these older builds did on an almost consistent basis is, well, completely full of shit. There's honestly no other way to put it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVSxzKJ8VMY

I've just watched the older builds you posted. The main difference if the older ones have tearing, while the DF one doesn't. The frame rate between the Gamescom version and the DF version seems comparable. All the builds turn to slide shows when there are a lot of zombies on screen, or when in vehicles.

So the excuse for your highlighted hypocrisy/mental gymnastics doesn't hold water. DR3 is a game that since its reveal has been plagued with frame rate problems. They have been mitigated to some degree over time, but the final game still has major frame rate issues. As the DF article and video clearly shows.
 
720p is one thing, and if it was a decision made to have a minimum of 30FPS, then I kind of get it. But it can't even maintain 30FPS? What a fucking joke. I've had enough 720p, no-AA, sub-30FPS games last gen. It's why I was looking forward to the next gen. But this game is literally the same shit, just with more zombies.

To be fair to the XBO though, I put the blame on the devs. I'm confident the XBO is powerful enough to run a game like this at at least a rock solid 30 FPS.

It's hard to tell at this point if it's because of problems with the XBO itself, the fact its a new hardware or if it's simply problems with the devs. But seeing how awful Dead Rising 2 ran on PS3/360 I would not be surprised if the devs were in part responsible for the poor performance.
 
Probably not. We don't know how far along the build at the event is necessarily or when exactly the event took place.

However, there were some noticeable dips in the build shown off at IGN, which I assume was a near final build. They could fix the problems through a patch if that was the final build, but having the framerate drop when nothing is happening (in the London event build) doesn't bode well for the stability of the game or the claims from CV that they've had 30 fps locked for a while now.

Did the devs really say that they've had the game running at a constant 30fps or did they say it'd be that way for launch?

And it just seems like the whole discussion is pointless if we don't even know any details about the build they played or how old it is.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom