Support NeoGAF

[Bananastand]

Has there been any news yet on a console patch? I've had some fun with the game but the loadtimes and framerate really got on my nerves so I've been waiting for a more stable experience.

 

[K.Jack]

WTF ? Did I ever say this was a good thing ? Did you read OP ?

It is simply slowdown which by definition means that you are not losing frames. What's the problem about being specific ?

Dude just quit.

If you don't understand that slowdown is frames being dropped, get some education on the subject before you enter a thread about technical issues.

Why else would it go from smooth running to immense slowdown?

 

[Eddie_Khaled]

I am guessing the devs are busy with there Christmas shopping, rather than patching this mess up ?!

 

[IvorB]

Sadly this is the future that people have signed up to with every broken game that gets a free pass. Return the game to the retailer, OP. As long as they are sitting with all the buyers' money in their bank accounts they will never change.

 

[The Argus]

I was so close to preordering this. I figured if second tier Mad Max ran well why wouldn't JC3 their flagship game. This really could have spent a few more months in the oven and launched in the spring.

 

[KillerMan91]

You kidding? Last generation was hardly any better.

Last generation was pretty much by every standard worse.

 

[Nzyme32]

PC games are broken too, and you miss out on exclusives, so going PC this gen isn't the be all end all of gaming decisions.

Completely different story though. There is practically no certification on PC platforms such as Steam, where developers are simply trusted to do the right thing. When they don't, it's either internet hysteria and reporting by customers that gets changes, as well as poor reviews and sales being seen by the developer / publisher in question; other times nothing will change - totally depends on the devs and how egregious the issues are and sales performance.

Consoles have a drawn out certification process not only for the games but the updates also. Games coming out in an unplayable fashion is a failure of the certification process for that system.

 

[MMaRsu]

Um, a 1-ton truck with a lawnmower engine won't go anywhere, but a 1-ton truck with a turbocharged v-8 will.

That's not brute-forcing, that's the appropriate application of force.

What we've got here is games that are too advanced for the consoles they're on. The consoles are underpowered. The PC isn't "brute-forcing" and there's nothing wrong with the fact that it requires more power to properly run a game the consoles can't.

Its about a dev who cant or wont optimize their game for fixed hardware. dont blame the hardware, even if the tech isnt the latest.

 

[Vinland]

Um, a 1-ton truck with a lawnmower engine won't go anywhere, but a 1-ton truck with a turbocharged v-8 will.

That's not brute-forcing, that's the appropriate application of force.

What we've got here is games that are too advanced for the consoles they're on. The consoles are underpowered. The PC isn't "brute-forcing" and there's nothing wrong with the fact that it requires more power to properly run a game the consoles can't.

Or it could be that the 80-20 rule in software engineering is holding performance hostage. That is to say, 80 percent of the framerate hitches come from 20% of the code base where that 20% is the custom, console specific code. Blaming hardware is too easy and a crutch.

All you need to do is look at metal gear solid 5. They spent so much time in engine optimization paralysis that it maybe very well be the best engine ever made but the content around it suffered the long cycle along with the relationships within the company.

There is always an economy behind software. So if you are a publisher money bin and you see a game 80% good enough for 3 platforms it is in ship it state where the developers may disagree but they are engineers, not financial forecasters so they get overruled and games don't get extra attention to detail.

And that is why CDProject wins dev of the year with 2 out of 3 platforms great and 1 so so but with excellent post launch support.

 

[Three]

Man that's too bad game looks like good fun. On Digital foundry's analysis performance didn't seem too bad, especially on the PS4

https://youtu.be/sjDWu6dEuxA

Performance is kind of atrocious on the XB1 but still seems playable. Does the video not stress the game enough or is it just a lot of exaggeration in the thread?

 

[RobNBanks]

yep. this is why i'm a console gamer. i just want to pop in a game and not have to worry about whether it can play it or not

 

[Ichabod]

Situations like this are the reason I'm happy I made the jump to PC as my primary a few years back. Until the hardware gap can be bridged (if ever): consoles for exclusives, PC for everything else.

 

[Three]

Dude just quit.

If you don't understand that slowdown is frames being dropped, get some education on the subject before you enter a thread about technical issues.

Why else would it go from smooth running to immense slowdown?

Technically slowdown isn't frames being dropped. There is a lower framerate but no dropped frames.

 

[Listonosh]

Is the PS4 version any better? I kind of want it but hearing about the framerate makes me anxious.

Nope. I actually ended up uninstalling it until I see Avalanche post about some progress on patching it. The gameplay itself is super solid, as many have said, and it really is a lot of fun, but the crazy ass load times coupled with truly horrific slowdown and framerate issues when simply TURNING THE CAMERA was the last straw.

 

[TAJ]

WTF ? Did I ever say this was a good thing ? Did you read OP ?

It is simply slowdown which by definition means that you are not losing frames. What's the problem about being specific ?

Notice the 'rate' in 'frame rate'? As in rate at which frames are delivered? If a 30fps game is slowing down it's because less than 30 frames are being finished each second.

 

[dark10x]

Technically slowdown isn't frames being dropped. There is a lower framerate but no dropped frames.

Right. It's about how long each frame persists on screen.

At 30fps on a 60hz display, each frame should persist for 33ms for proper frame-paced 30 frames per second. Any frame that lasts for more or less time impacts fluidity. For 60fps it must be 16.7ms for each frame and, again, any deviation saps away fluidity.

It is simply slowdown which by definition means that you are not losing frames. What's the problem about being specific ?

What you're talking about is not what we typically see in games these days. Actual slowdown, as we saw in many older games, occurs when the game continues to output every single frame even when missing its target. This actually used to happen regularly on PlayStation 2 with field rendered games where every frame would continue to be drawn even if the system fell behind resulting in what appears to be slow motion.

It's a rare thing these days since most games de-couple game logic from frame-rate in a way that game speed is maintained at any frame-rate.

 

[Kezen]

Um, a 1-ton truck with a lawnmower engine won't go anywhere, but a 1-ton truck with a turbocharged v-8 will.

That's not brute-forcing, that's the appropriate application of force.

What we've got here is games that are too advanced for the consoles they're on. The consoles are underpowered. The PC isn't "brute-forcing" and there's nothing wrong with the fact that it requires more power to properly run a game the consoles can't.

Very well said. There is no brute force involved in running games at higher settings and framerate, it is what the game actually requires.

 

[Shuggananas]

Would this happen if devs aimed for 60 FPS rather than 30 ?

 

[Any Questions]

MS/Sony need to look out for their consumers and have games that run that poorly fail cert.

As I said in the earlier thread... It's consumers who are at fault. We demand sub $300 consoles.

Pay peanuts.. Get frame rate issues or shite graphics.

 

[Norwegian_Imposter]

I love JC2. I want to love this game. But my PS4 isn't allowing it. Stupidly long load times combined with awful performance add up to "Why the fuck did I pre-order this digitally?!"

I swore after Little Big Planet 3 that I'd never pre-order another game digitally, but I went and did it. And I screwed myself again.

I have found now the servers are more stable the load times have been reduced alot and the frame rate chugs during its most frantic parts but on the whole its not like the OP's videos.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

And the devs kindly say thanks for buying it anyway despite the reviewers' warnings. Until we get more of the honest reviews starting to show up lately, and consumers actually LISTEN, or at least wait for further confirmation, companies will continue fleecing the masses. They don't give two shits about your complaints if they meet their sales goals. Sure they MIGHT patch it to improve it a little, but they shouldnt even be releasing broken games in the first place. But hey as long as that money train keeps rolling... choo choo.

Don't buy games with reported issues until AFTER they are fixed. Plain and simple.

 

[Laughing Banana]

It's a shame that places like Playstation Access or OutsideXBOX always seemingly fail to mention stuff like this... even though I like those folks.

 

[Stevey]

This generation.
Why are developers trying to do too much with the consoles? They know what they're capable of but time after time games are coming out that run like absolute shit.
Cant remember this ever happening to this degree in the past.

 

[ramparter]

MS and Sony making sure this generation is known as the broken AAA games generation.

I'm sorry but how is this related to MS & Sony. The consoles are certain hardware with certain capabilities. And they are totally fine for what they are and what they cost.

 

[Lucifon]

I also find it very frustrating OP. Extra frustrating that the developers aren't open about the issues and whether they're addressing them. I haven't played it again since launch weekend because the slowdown/framerate issues do genuinely damage the enjoyment of the game.

 

[outunderthestars]

I feel bad for all the people playing on XBONE/PS4... they really should be making the games run SOLID.

I remember seeing Farcry 4 playing on my friends PS4, struggling at like 25FPS and what looked like MEDIUM graphics. Then going home and booting it up on my 980GTX on ULTRA @ 120 FPS. It's literally a whole different experience.

I would hope so seeing as the GPU alone on your gaming rig is $200 more than an xbox one or PS4 at the moment.

 

[phyrlord]

Absolute bull shit come on. That game is 30 over 99% of the time. Never mind that a single 980 will not run that game at those levels. What's the point of even coming on here and lying and thinking no one's going to notice?

Awesome. I'm glad they fixed it.

 

[SmoothRunningGun]

As I said in the earlier thread... It's consumers who are at fault. We demand sub $300 consoles.

Pay peanuts.. Get frame rate issues or shite graphics.

No devs have to work within the contraints of the hardware they're developing for. This is basic software engineering.

 

[PopcornMegaphone]

This is why I wait to buy games after at least 3 months. The game will be cheaper and run better.

 

[Vashetti]

It's a shame that places like Playstation Access or OutsideXBOX always seemingly fail to mention stuff like this... even though I like those folks.

Because they essentially work for Sony and MS. They're not going to point out performance issues because it will reflect poorly on their respective consoles.

 

[Backfoggen]

Just had 6 mins load times on PS4. Real nice.

 

[phyrlord]

As I said in the earlier thread... It's consumers who are at fault. We demand sub $300 consoles.

Pay peanuts.. Get frame rate issues or shite graphics.

This is exactly what I'm staying. You state a fact about consoles having 2012 Tech. and that you can pay $1000 for a PC and get 3-4x the performance and people go APE shit.

Earlier I was trying to draw a comparison between an average Computer experience, to an average current gen Console gaming experience and the performance isn't up to snuff. Is it the dev's fault for not working harder on making the games work better on consoles? or the console manufactures for not putting more in the box? RAISING THE STANDARD on pricing.

(To the PC masterrace people, YES, maybe 120 fps FARCRY 4 was high, my memory served me wrong maybe, it has been a while, but at least 80 1080P on a 980 OC'ed by 200mhz.)

 

[lowhighkang_LHK]

I would hope so seeing as the GPU alone on your gaming rig is $200 more than an xbox one or PS4 at the moment.

Not to mention what he's saying is factually incorrect.

First off, Far Cry 4 on PS4 does not struggle at 26 fps. It's framerate is stable and maintained 30 fps perceivable throughout. I know Ubisoft is Ubisoft, but get your Ubisoft games right. This is no Ass Creed shit fest. Maybe I played Far Cry 4 post-patch or something...I don't know? But it ran and looked great.

But this is what I think the bigger problem is. Whether it's Xone, PS4 or high-end PC. It's all about proper optimization that affects everyone. You shouldn't need an expensive graphics card to run fucking Just Cause 3 of all games maxed out at 60 fps.You can achieve so much more with so much less on The Witcher 3 for example. Secondly, patches everywhere are constantly being released on all platforms for so many games now.

Because they essentially work for Sony and MS. They're not going to point out performance issues because it will reflect poorly on their respective consoles.

I would like to think it makes the developer look bad. You know, for targeting 25-30fps and instead not putting the extra effort to achieve a stable framerate. It has nothing to do with the hardware, the PS4 is several magnitudes more powerful than the PS3, yet this generation and last generation, you get 60 fps, you get 30 fps, and then you get the classic 20 to 30 fps game. Uncharted 4 multiplayer targets 60 fps, great gameplay, and it looks great. Obviously if they made it 30 fps it would look better, and if they made it "kind of sorta 30 fps" it would look EVEN better. But developers need to hit the cut off limit and understand performance matters.

I give a lot of credit to Halo 5. Making a good looking game at 60 fps. That's the developer understanding the hardware and making a game that visually and technically succeeds on the hardware they are given. This nonsense that it's the consumers fault for not wanting 600 dollar consoles is stupid. Fuck, we'd still have technical issues from games even if we had 600 dollar consoles.

Look, I'm glad Bethesda got it right on PS4 with the recent patch, but that's how the game should have come out to begin with. Whether Avalanche wants to release a patch and get things running better on Xbox One for the topic creator, fuck Just Cause 3 and fuck them. Sell that game back and play the vast quantities of other games to play that look great and are well optimized for all platforms. Don't support this nonsense. It's like these developers are like, "hey man our game is -almost- there in regards to framerate....but fuck it let's just ship it." And let's be honest I'm pretty sure we all have a massive back log anyway.

EDIT: It was interesting to note that one of the developers on DriveClub said they 'almost' had the game at 60 fps. But instead of releasing a game that would fluctuate from 30 to 60 fps (particularly during heavy weather moments) they opted 30 fps lock. It's buttery smooth, technically great, looks fantastic and plays well.

 

[Ingueferroque]

Really? Seems like we've had way more this gen.

If so, I'd say our tastes are probably more refined now versus being more vocal about it. The jump from last gen to this gen wasn't that impressive graphically, so I think gamers look to performance for that "next-gen feel" instead of more polygons as was the case in the past.

Are you a sarcastic account?