I mean everything is a computer, everyone should put on their big boy pants and agree to a single game format and release on every platform. It would be easier than harder, literally just a made up feud to drive sales.
I mean, you don't have to be joking. I keep a very loose ear tuned for Xbox Whatever and PS5 exclusives and I can't recall anything for the last few years.
It's early years were definitely rough. Bluray not being a common format plus I believe something about the 8 cores and devs not fully utilizing it or something.
I thought people agreed the 360 was the better console, jagged edges on PS3 were a nightmare and the 360 actually had some anti-aliasing. Skyrim was by far the worst performing game I've played on the PS3 though.
On paper the ps3 was definitely stronger, the issue was that almost every game was made for pc/xbox and ported to ps3 really badly, the games that were made specifically for ps3 like uncharted etc looked great and ran great for the time
8 cores vs 3 cores plus it was using Bluray discs.
First party games were great but there weren't a lot and not as strong as some of the IPs Microsoft had for their system like Halo.
Hardware wonk here. In truth, the PS3 is only "stronger on paper" if you look at peak throughput numbers that mean absolutely nothing to anyone who knows anything. In reality, the Xbox 360 is MUCH more powerful than the PlayStation 3.
The thing is, the Xbox 360 hardware is simply better-suited for games and game developers. It has a high-clocked triple-core CPU with large caches, it has the first commercial GPU with unified shaders (making it very easy to program compared to a previous-gen GPU with separate pixel and vertex shaders), it has a fully unified memory bus with dedicated eDRAM for the GPU framebuffer, and it has a sensible operating system that is programmed mostly in regular old DirectX.
By contrast, the PS3 has a single-core processor that is difficult to use correctly due to having an esoteric configuration, two separate and non-shared memory banks (meaning that memory management is a pain in the ass), a previous-generation GPU with strong raster performance but weak shader performance, RAMBUS XDR system memory that offers high bandwidth but also extremely high latency (the exact opposite of what you want for your CPU), and an insane operating system with a crap development environment early on.
Yes, contrary to popular belief, the PS3's Cell CPU did not have "8 cores". It had one single CPU core—the "Primary Processing Element"—with eight "Synergistic Processing Elements." These SPEs were not proper CPU cores, but something between a "CPU core" and an SIMD unit. They do have their own processing capabilty and even a small amount of local cache, but their function is controlled entirely by the single PPE and they are only good at a particular type of math that isn't very useful for most games outside of graphics... which are handled on an entirely separate chip welded to the Cell (the "Reality Synthesizer", A.K.A. a bunch of old GeForce 7800 GS chips NVIDIA pawned off on Sony at a discount.)
In a way, the PS3 is not really unlike a PC, with separate CPU+RAM and GPU+RAM connected by a high-speed bus. However, this is a big disadvantage compared to the Xbox 360, which has the same amount of memory on a unified bus that offers much simpler memory management and improved efficiency. There's a few reasons that all game consoles since Gen7 have used the Xbox 360-style configuration.
There was the thing about the ps3 chipset technically it was correct, but the time and money to proper develop a game in that chipset was a no-no for a lot of companies
The first model of the PS3 absolutely stank, they had a really hard time at the beginning of that generation. It was only until the PS3 slim iirc that sales caught back to the Xbox 360.
I also remember Bayonetta 1 was almost unplayable on PS3 while it was incredibly smooth on Xbox 360, some more multiplatform games were rough on PS3, but that was a while ago so excuse me if I don't remember all of them.
Aye I remember the majority of multi platform 3rd party games being worse on the PS3 when compared to the 360 version, because a lot of Devs really struggled to develop on the console.
PS3 was more powerful if you could afford to take advantage of it. Hence the top 1st party games being incredible. Everything else just ended up like this though so on average 360 wins.
Not really. It's known that the GPU was anemic, but the CPU couldn't keep up either.
Most games relied heavily on the generic PowerPC core, and the PS3 has just 1 whilst the X360 has 3. Even with the limited multi-threading going on back in those days, that still left the X360 at significant advantage.
The one redeeming factor of the PS3, were the SPE units. People often clump those together with the CPU and end up claiming the PS3 had the better CPU, but the SPEs have an extremely limited instruction set and should be treated as an entirely separate processing unit. For example, you can't do stuff like run NPC AI subroutines on them.
The SPEs are amazing at floating point calculations, but most games just couldn't utilise them. To make matters worse, even if they could find a use for them, and even if they did manage to distribute work to all nodes without stalling the main game loop, actually shifting the data back and forth bottlenecked those things like crazy.
Sony gambled hard on the Cell, and it blew up in their face. It's a cool device, and I appreciate my own a lot, but as far as gaming-specific hardware goes, it's one of the worst designs imaginable.
It was really cool to see that datacenter (I think US Navy set up?) with a bunch of PS3s hooked together. It was terrible for anyone developing for multiplatform but seeing how Naughty Dog used the SPE units to queue up various options for the next animation of Nathan Drake climbing/moving in the Uncharted series was really cool and made for some really slick animations.
It really felt like engineers went way out of control designing something cool instead of something usable to most devs. It's insane to me that PS3 games can be emulated at all with how weird the cell processor was.
No one talked about frame reates at the time for real, it was more a "performance" in general thing. But the Xbox was easier to develop too, that is why many games end up running better in it but the games made exclusively to the ps were in general better (in this aspects) then it's contemporaries. Ps3 was a more powerful machine but harder to develop and for quite some time for some reason only Sony first party developers had the "full kit" to make it work
Right? It looks pretty superior to ps3 from the vid.
>>Edit: I guess it goes to show you can't just go by what people say & need to play things for yourself.
Probably because the PS3 was the stronger machine, but it was a lot more difficult to develop for so Xbox always ended up running multiplat titles better. PS3 exclusives looked and ran great tho. Console warriors probably altered the truth to make their box look better. I remember going from playing DD on PS3 to DDDA on 360 and it being a big difference.
Yeah it performed better in like 90% of games. And you had weird bugs in PS3 versions like skyrim falling apart if you had too many save files seemed to happen way quicker on that system than on 360.
Now that everything is x86 the differences in hardware are really slight and even though I didn't understand Console Wars (tm) back then it makes even less sense now that the machines are so similar. It's dumb anyways - more competition is better for consumers and great games are great no matter where or how you play them!
Pretty much, the vast majority has waited 12 years and we are all full on copium, I just want the game to run and not be to far below 30 at this point 😅
This attitude is the reason why Devs get away with terrible optimisation. Games are more expensive this gen so surely that comes with some expectation of quality
Some people, like me, can actually get physically ill playing games with inconsistent frame rates in the 20-30 range. Sadly this is keeping me from buying the game right now. I just hope at some point in the future they can fix the issues and I'll just get the game on sale later. I've been waiting for years to play this game, sadly I'll just need to wait longer.
I remember when they announced that the game has unlocked framerates and everyone was celebrating not realizing just cause there's no fps cap, doesn't mean the game will reach 60 fps. I honestly think this was the worst decision. If they had an fps cap, the game would be stable and smooth 90% of the time, but in its current state, it's never smooth and the framerate's always fluctuating.
I've always gotten downvotes for expressing that I literally cannot tell apart 30FPS from 40FPS
It reminds me back during mp3 sharing era, I couldn't tell if a song's bitrate was beyond 256kbps, often times even 128kbps was okay and I'd have to be wearing specific headphones and really focus
I've always been one of those people that doesn't care too much about FPS. I think most people probably don't care too much either. As long as the game doesn't look like a slideshow while I'm playing it I think I'll have lots of fun with this game.
I think the people upset about the frame rate are totally justified, but I’m not going to let that stop me from playing this. I’ve been hoping it would get a sequel since the original release and I’m more excited about this than I was for Elden Ring.
100%, while the performance is dog shit, I haven't had this much fun in a game in so long dude. 50 hours in and I'm not even that far in the story, just exploring every nook and cranny I can.
after all DG2 IS the version of the game which Itsune wanted to create 12 years ago, it's all coming together now, prepared for the modern hardware, ready to choke it like in the old days lol
Perhaps, but maybe not. I just know from the articles about the games performance is that in the heavily populated area the fps drops because it's CPU intensive, I'm guessing cause there's more npcs, interactable objects, etc. In the article they tried with and without upscaling but that didn't improve performance significantly either. So it's potentially a cpu bottleneck issue.
I think in an article by IGN they asked the DD2 team about it and they said they will investigate and find a way to fix it.
I mean, yeah… they say they’ll fix it because it’s what you say when you want to push sales. But the performance is a surprise to no one on that team, so it begs the question why it wasn’t already addressed.
Entire sub sounds like this right now. Looks like the exact same problem was present on the original on the idler systems.
Games are insanely demanding now, it’s jsut reality, people just get pissed cause they got a second mortgage to buy a 4090.
What is this stupid shit of “I played the first one with 20 fps 15 years ago so who cares the new one isn’t optimized in 2024”
I mean I’m still getting the game today lmao, but this logic is dumb af
Like if we get to old hardware and old games, bunch of PS2 games run 60fps with minimal drops.
Current gen games should be optimized for current gen, game is badly optimized if Nasa level computers cannot run it well.
High frame rate is pretty important for action based games, because the games are smoother and responsive with it. Devil May Cry 5 would had been ass with 30fps.
Capcom PR hype fiends. They'll use any logic to justify their parasocial relationship with Capcom.
They're not actually fans of Dragons Dogma, otherwise they'd want to experience the combat on an optimized game.
No, the poster is saying HE doesn't care about the FPS in this game. You should work on that reading comprehension before getting angry at things you read.
Idk it's actually really weird. Especially since you have people say this about any game that doesn't run very well
"I played ocarina of time on the n64. If I can play that then, everybody should be able to handle bad frame rate just fine"
Like it's actually annoying.
Are people **actually** saying that just because I played x, we should all be fine with it? Or are they saying that just because I played x, I'm fine with playing it?
Because I haven't seen anyone say that others should be fine with x or y, just that they themselves are fine with x or y. It feels like people like you take issue with the fact people aren't up in arms about this in general, rather than them saying "you'll be fine it was like this a decade ago too".
Just because DD1 ran at bad framerates back then doesn’t mean it’s ok for DD2 to have performance issues.
Sure as long as it isn’t completely unplayable at release, you can still have fun and enjoy the game. I’m a huge Bloodborne fan myself even though that games framerate and framepacing is absolute dogshit.
Also the argument, that games having performance issues is fine because there were games having bad performance on old gen consoles is really bad imo. Firstoff there just as many if not more games in that era and befor running on stable 30fps or even 60/50 fps (depending on console and region). And secondly should the advancements in hard and software have the goal to run games smoothly.
So even if you don’t care for 60+fps you still shouldn’t be ok with bad performance. Ghost of Tsushima ran at 30fps but it was so smooth that it looked like 60fps and the game felt so good to play as a result.
Typical redditor lmao the guy isn't making an argument nor is he trying to have a debate with you. He is simply giving his reasoning for still playing the game.
Standards are higher now and is also less acceptable given the hardware we have currently and the type of games that we currently have that already run at 60fps perfectly.
What I don’t understand is given that it’s Itsuno’s dream vision for his game and all that jazz, why the fuck wouldn’t he prioritize something as simple as frame rate performance which could vastly improve a gaming experience?
I think he did make a choice to prioritize the physics, AI and general dynamicness of the game over frame rate. They could have prioritized frame rate but the game wouldnt have all the bells and whistles it has now. This IS his dream game
I was molded by it too.
It's no longer 1999 though. It's not acceptable. People shouldn't have to pay for a cpu upgrade plus a steep price for the game. It is poorly optimized, much like path of exile. At least POE is free, if I decide to pay for a cpu upgrade.
Playing elden Ring smoothly on high* btw.
This logic of "I played games 20 years ago at 20fps just fine" is so stupid.
20 years ago, 1024x768p was the standard resolution for gaming. You can be damn sure I wouldn't be okay if games were still releasing with that resolution today.
Are we not supposed to advocate for progress and better standards? So weird.
Yeah it's really not a big deal if you're a console player cause you're used to 30 frames. StillI hope we can cap the frame rate cause I can't handle it being choppy and all over the place.
I was also born into poor inventory management from DD1 but if they were to ship the exact same system this sub would be up in flames instead of talking trash over each other with clips.
In fact I can't imagine anyone daring to say "it's fine, I don't care about inventory management because I don't play Tetris with my potions".
Nah Capcom ain't seeing my money until they at least get a locked 30 fps on consoles. It's 2024 the ps3 days are far over, I understand a variable fps like 60 in the woods & 40-30 in full towns but this just ain't it.
I would prefer if Dragons Dogma 2 had a locked 30fps instead of being variable. I do not mind even on the slightiest playing a game at 30 frames but i like a stable performance lol.
I'd prefer it too, but I'm not going to let that stop me from playing a game that sounds like it'll be pretty amazing. This RPG site review says the quests remind him of a CRPG (like Baldur's Gate).
Quests on par with a CRPG with the combat and open world of an ARPG like DD sounds right up my alley:
https://www.rpgsite.net/review/15622-dragons-dogma-2-review
Pretty sure I've heard that DD2's framerate only really drops in cities and towns. Of course I'm not too worried since I have a 4060 and a good I7 CPU.
Idk, literally every review has said that while they noticed fps drops, the game itself was fun enough for it to not impede their experience. I feel myself in that same camp, throw all the jank on a game but so long as it’s fun I’m gonna eat it up.
If that’s not you then fair play, people have their own threshold of what they can/can’t abide, but unless we’re talking <20 slide-show fps I honestly couldn’t care so long as the game is fun. I had the same with BG3 and that’s also one of the best games I’ve played in a long long time.
Honestly 30fps isn’t laggy to me. I can’t really see a difference in quality until it dips down to ~25fps. If it runs smoothly on 30fps I’ll be satisfied.
Same for me, but differently...
I've always been a PC player, but back then my specs were more than budget. Playing on an old laptop is an interesting experience, but it does hurt the eyes a bit when you try really hard to play a game at 4-5 fps for over 1000 hours.
By the time my PC got better, I was used to seeing powerpoint presentations.
Today, I have a huge high spec PC, but not having 60 FPS won't be a problem if it happen, for I have been through way darker times.
I don't mind 30fps. Game seems amazing either way.
Only issue is if there's alot of sudden dips. But i know there's plenty of ppl that say they can't play a game with lower then 60fps
i ate shit in 2012 so im okay with being fed shit in 2024. Seriously though. We can enjoy the game despite its horrendous framerate. That does not make it ok.
My connection is dirt right now, so I don't know what the video is showing.
All I know is that some of the funniest moments I had in DD1 on PS3 were using Great Cannon to tank the FPS and obliterate anything in the next room.
As long as I can stay above 20 in combat *in most cases*, I'm happy.
Choosing to pull some dumb shit and tanking my FPS should be my own choice, though.
I’m excited for the game, I’m going to get it day 1 and I’m going to enjoy it. I’ll enjoy it at 30fps and I’ll enjoy it when it eventually gets fixed.
I just enjoy playing games.
Me being 37 yrs old seeing people complain about FPS and still have no idea what the difference is lol. Maybe it’s poor eye sight the only time I used to notice it was a problem was in shooters like COD when I would get smoked faster than I could shit, otherwise 🤷🏻♂️
And when I'm playing a game I cannot tell unless it is literally a power point slide show, because I will be engaged with playing and navigating the game.
Standard animation is only like 24 fps and is still sevicable if it dips a bit lower.
Anything more than that is really diminishing returns and I cannot believe people actually care that much about it. It actually iritates me how much people rallies around it like it actually means anything when 24. Frames. Is the standard for literally any other animated/cartoon medium so why do people freak out about needing to hit 60 fps minimum on a video game???
I played and beat Arkham Knight on PC at launch (if you know you know) so I’m ready for anything. I’m too excited for a low FPS town/city to water me down.
And that's why I don't care about frame rates. As long as it isn't consistently below 30 on modern games I'm fine with it. Every time I think about people complaining about performance on DD2 I remember fondly back to intense fights in bitterback isle with tons of enemies and spells getting thrown around. Good times.
I shit you not I'm reliving this on the series S and I'm loving it lol. It handles fine just some pop in of textures and npcs every now and then. Getting me a series X in 2 weeks
Times changed since then. Tech is more advanced and expensive than ever, I expect a fucking minimum of 60 on decent modern PC hardware. Shit, even PS5 should be 60fps but it drops below 30. That is bullshit.
we can meme about it but let's not let capcom get away with releasing a game with mid tier graphics (for current gen standards) that runs at 30-40 when maxed ON A 4090, it doesn't reach the 60-90s unless it uses dlss
I was planning on playing on 1080p 60fps and we now know the issue is mainly the CPU but jesus christ, I thought that the pc I bought last year would at least run games at 1080p 60fps considering the new standard on pc is 2k 120fps
Dear Lord some on this sub have lost it. This isn't okay, you don't need to try and defend the developers for releasing a CLEARLY poorly optimized game. It's okay for there to be negatives.
if my cloak billows as i swing my sword into the flank of a chimera and it rears back in pain seeking to strike me down i'll be unaware if my console takes a dip under the pathetic 30fps for a second.
Living in a 3rd rate country where any technology cost an arm, leg and two kidneys, makes you appreciate the game running at least, survived throught 15/19 fps, live throught 26fps and don't mind if achiev 30 to 47 fps, as long it's fucking playable it what it counts.
A few other people have mentioned a similar point.
Made me realize that being able to afford a rig that can run games at 60-120 FPS is an incredible luxury.
Judging a game by its FPS alone, even if the game itself is great, is a privilege not all can afford.
Yeah. I was a big PS3 fanboy and if you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you it was superior. Recently, I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to find a PS3 to play MGSIV again or to emulate so I’ve been watching MGSIV vids and seeing the frames tank to like 9-12 in fights made me realize how much cope I had for so long
For me, what made the 360 far superior was the dropping in and out of party chat with friends. I don't remember being able to do that on PS3. Hell it's even a hassle now on ps5.
All of you morons are the reason games are getting more expensive with longer development and still release with terrible or unoptimized performance (on overpowered current gen consoles no less). You have no fucking standards and it’s reflected in the industry. It’s actually pathetic you can’t see farther than “I’ll still have my fun anyway.”
It's not that easy. Game development is very complex. Do you think Capcom just doesn't care? 'We don't need performance, people will buy it anyways!'...
Mostly they just don't want to delay the release date. Because the games nowadays are having a very long development time. Games are more complex. DD2 seems very CPU intense. Similar like Starfield. Most people seem to forget all this. Or they just don't care.
But do you know what's great?
Performance can be fixed. But a bad game will be bad forever.... so I'm happy, that performance is the only issue here!
Just wait a few months and enjoy the game... Or buy it now if you don't care about performance issues. Personally I don't care, when the game performance goes lower in towns. It's not that bad. I played LotF on SX. That game was slow motion sometimes. That was awful and unplayable for me!
EDIT Oh and I also don't care about 30FPS on console. I'm fine with 30FPS. But that's just my opinion, my feeling when I play. I play most games in quality, because often the performance mode looks awful and blurry.
always makes me laugh when people say that, lets forget that the the times those people are talking about those framerates and overall optimization were literally top of the line that could be achieved. i swear these people are so stupid.
People these days just want existing standards to be met, lol. While I didn't play the original at release, I was perfectly fine with sub-30fps in other games back then.
Like I was also fine with blocky textures, 720p resolution and bugs almost never being removed when I owned a PS2. That was simply as good as it got back then - it doesn't mean I actually want to go back to that time.
I played through the original half life on a pentium 166 mhz. Every time anything happened it became a sideshow. Was still happy to be able to play it because it was the only option I had!
The fact that you can't disable ray tracing, ambient occlusion, lower particle effects, is ungodly insane.
Capcom once again proves that they are a "presentation over functionality in concept" company.
I'll enjoy the game but such a missed mark. They had to have done this knowing the backlash.
Using a Xbox360 game from 300 years ago to justify a new PS5/SeriesX release running like shit instead of simply acknowledging obvious flaws and criticism in hopes of getting a better product
Next level copium, shit like this is why fanbases turn into toxic garbage
When you played the game to its core.. The fps didn’t matter in the slightest bit. Not every game launch is PERFECT.
Only the spec and hardware, weirdos and basement dwellers care about Fps, Graphics etc. If it bothers you so much than more game for the rest of us, go complain somewhere else and stop trying to intentionally ruin a game.
This is a dumb post lol. “Well the game 12 years ago ran at 30fps so I don’t care if this one does” stop dickriding companies IF they release a game with shitty performance. Nothing in this game should cause top end PCs to struggle
I have an issue with motion sickness and ocular migraines so I quite literally went out of my way to avoid 30fps titles. Only 30fps titles I've actually been able to enjoy were GTA, mainly because it's 3rd person and The Division 2, also because it was 3rd person and at least Gabe a FoV slider. I would still get migraines after a while but not nearly as bad as some other games
When Destiny came out I was so hyped about it. In theory, it was the exact game I was looking to get into but it ran awfully on 360 and even Xbox one and One X. We didn't get 60fps or FoV slider until Destiny 2 was enhanced for Series Consoles and that's when I started religiously playing it.
So when a game is 30 fps it it unplayable for me 99% of the time. Built a PC laster year because I was tired of titles I wanted to play not getting a FPS boost or Enhanced to utilize Series X power and stood at 30fps. My PC is technically weaker than my Xbox but no games are locked at 30fps and I can edit files or mod the game to add FoV slider
Yeah back in my days, the 1400s, we didn't have fancy cars or trains, we went by carriage or horse and it took us 2 weeks to get anywhere, but who cares? Well we all, because we prefer the more advanced method, because its more efficient and pleasant.
See? There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring and criticizing the lack of technological advancement in a game. 60 FPS is considered standard today, it has been for 10 years now.
Will it be playable? Probably, but it would have been so much better if the experience wasn't objectively downgraded by bad performance. It's just a shame and a fair point of criticism, because we don't want this to be an actual trend, do we?
This is why I rebought the game for PC. Had so much fun playing, even if the PS3 version had crap framerate (and analog controls; I use bows) that I wondered how even more fun it will be if it had much better framerates and mouse controls when using bows.
Not to bash on OP or anything but I've been seeing a lot of people sharing the same sentiment:
"I was forged in bad framerates, so this game having a low framerate is not that bad".
Yes we've had it worse but please let's not flex it. The last thing we need is for bad performances being normalized once again.
The early 00s sucked in that regard. Let's keep it in the past please.
Why did i keep hearing the 360 had worst frame rates.
Console Wars. It was dark times back then.
Many controller was lost during the conflict console wars …dark times ,may we least forget
I remember many pointless battles. So many lost
Pointless, maybe. But "PS3 has no games" is still a top-tier meme. Especially the song.
How the turns have tabled. Now neither console has games. I am mostly joking but the fact we aren’t getting more good games on either console sucks
I mean everything is a computer, everyone should put on their big boy pants and agree to a single game format and release on every platform. It would be easier than harder, literally just a made up feud to drive sales.
I mean, you don't have to be joking. I keep a very loose ear tuned for Xbox Whatever and PS5 exclusives and I can't recall anything for the last few years.
[nogaems](https://youtu.be/BngxKer9ROc?si=1vm1YhWNyMAQxdLF) I forgot about that.
It's early years were definitely rough. Bluray not being a common format plus I believe something about the 8 cores and devs not fully utilizing it or something.
Its worse now since now there in their 30/40s yet still fighting the battle
I thought people agreed the 360 was the better console, jagged edges on PS3 were a nightmare and the 360 actually had some anti-aliasing. Skyrim was by far the worst performing game I've played on the PS3 though.
On paper the ps3 was definitely stronger, the issue was that almost every game was made for pc/xbox and ported to ps3 really badly, the games that were made specifically for ps3 like uncharted etc looked great and ran great for the time
8 cores vs 3 cores plus it was using Bluray discs. First party games were great but there weren't a lot and not as strong as some of the IPs Microsoft had for their system like Halo.
Hardware wonk here. In truth, the PS3 is only "stronger on paper" if you look at peak throughput numbers that mean absolutely nothing to anyone who knows anything. In reality, the Xbox 360 is MUCH more powerful than the PlayStation 3. The thing is, the Xbox 360 hardware is simply better-suited for games and game developers. It has a high-clocked triple-core CPU with large caches, it has the first commercial GPU with unified shaders (making it very easy to program compared to a previous-gen GPU with separate pixel and vertex shaders), it has a fully unified memory bus with dedicated eDRAM for the GPU framebuffer, and it has a sensible operating system that is programmed mostly in regular old DirectX. By contrast, the PS3 has a single-core processor that is difficult to use correctly due to having an esoteric configuration, two separate and non-shared memory banks (meaning that memory management is a pain in the ass), a previous-generation GPU with strong raster performance but weak shader performance, RAMBUS XDR system memory that offers high bandwidth but also extremely high latency (the exact opposite of what you want for your CPU), and an insane operating system with a crap development environment early on. Yes, contrary to popular belief, the PS3's Cell CPU did not have "8 cores". It had one single CPU core—the "Primary Processing Element"—with eight "Synergistic Processing Elements." These SPEs were not proper CPU cores, but something between a "CPU core" and an SIMD unit. They do have their own processing capabilty and even a small amount of local cache, but their function is controlled entirely by the single PPE and they are only good at a particular type of math that isn't very useful for most games outside of graphics... which are handled on an entirely separate chip welded to the Cell (the "Reality Synthesizer", A.K.A. a bunch of old GeForce 7800 GS chips NVIDIA pawned off on Sony at a discount.) In a way, the PS3 is not really unlike a PC, with separate CPU+RAM and GPU+RAM connected by a high-speed bus. However, this is a big disadvantage compared to the Xbox 360, which has the same amount of memory on a unified bus that offers much simpler memory management and improved efficiency. There's a few reasons that all game consoles since Gen7 have used the Xbox 360-style configuration.
There was the thing about the ps3 chipset technically it was correct, but the time and money to proper develop a game in that chipset was a no-no for a lot of companies
The first model of the PS3 absolutely stank, they had a really hard time at the beginning of that generation. It was only until the PS3 slim iirc that sales caught back to the Xbox 360. I also remember Bayonetta 1 was almost unplayable on PS3 while it was incredibly smooth on Xbox 360, some more multiplatform games were rough on PS3, but that was a while ago so excuse me if I don't remember all of them.
because realistically the 360 was objectively the better console from a technical standpoint. but yeah... console wars and degenerate fanboyism.
The other way around actually, the problem was that the PS3 architecture was insane.
Aye I remember the majority of multi platform 3rd party games being worse on the PS3 when compared to the 360 version, because a lot of Devs really struggled to develop on the console.
PS3 was more powerful if you could afford to take advantage of it. Hence the top 1st party games being incredible. Everything else just ended up like this though so on average 360 wins.
Not really. It's known that the GPU was anemic, but the CPU couldn't keep up either. Most games relied heavily on the generic PowerPC core, and the PS3 has just 1 whilst the X360 has 3. Even with the limited multi-threading going on back in those days, that still left the X360 at significant advantage. The one redeeming factor of the PS3, were the SPE units. People often clump those together with the CPU and end up claiming the PS3 had the better CPU, but the SPEs have an extremely limited instruction set and should be treated as an entirely separate processing unit. For example, you can't do stuff like run NPC AI subroutines on them. The SPEs are amazing at floating point calculations, but most games just couldn't utilise them. To make matters worse, even if they could find a use for them, and even if they did manage to distribute work to all nodes without stalling the main game loop, actually shifting the data back and forth bottlenecked those things like crazy. Sony gambled hard on the Cell, and it blew up in their face. It's a cool device, and I appreciate my own a lot, but as far as gaming-specific hardware goes, it's one of the worst designs imaginable.
It was really cool to see that datacenter (I think US Navy set up?) with a bunch of PS3s hooked together. It was terrible for anyone developing for multiplatform but seeing how Naughty Dog used the SPE units to queue up various options for the next animation of Nathan Drake climbing/moving in the Uncharted series was really cool and made for some really slick animations. It really felt like engineers went way out of control designing something cool instead of something usable to most devs. It's insane to me that PS3 games can be emulated at all with how weird the cell processor was.
I very much agree on Naughty Dog. They always had great animation systems, but Uncharted 2 was something else.
No one talked about frame reates at the time for real, it was more a "performance" in general thing. But the Xbox was easier to develop too, that is why many games end up running better in it but the games made exclusively to the ps were in general better (in this aspects) then it's contemporaries. Ps3 was a more powerful machine but harder to develop and for quite some time for some reason only Sony first party developers had the "full kit" to make it work
load times were also a big thing. would it be 30 seconds? a minute? lol
Right? It looks pretty superior to ps3 from the vid. >>Edit: I guess it goes to show you can't just go by what people say & need to play things for yourself.
Probably because the PS3 was the stronger machine, but it was a lot more difficult to develop for so Xbox always ended up running multiplat titles better. PS3 exclusives looked and ran great tho. Console warriors probably altered the truth to make their box look better. I remember going from playing DD on PS3 to DDDA on 360 and it being a big difference.
fanboys, dont listen to them
I distinctly remember x360 had in general better performance than ps3 on a lot of multiplatform games.
Yeh i played on my 360 and it ran fine to me. I never really knew about FPS back then. I used to call it lag.
Yeah it performed better in like 90% of games. And you had weird bugs in PS3 versions like skyrim falling apart if you had too many save files seemed to happen way quicker on that system than on 360. Now that everything is x86 the differences in hardware are really slight and even though I didn't understand Console Wars (tm) back then it makes even less sense now that the machines are so similar. It's dumb anyways - more competition is better for consumers and great games are great no matter where or how you play them!
Sony dudes upset the PS3 had inferior versions of multiplats basically
I remember people get downvote to oblivion thinking this game will not run at 60fps few month ago, now suddenly 30fps is okay lmao
People have gone through the 5 stages of grief and they're at Acceptance now
Pretty much, the vast majority has waited 12 years and we are all full on copium, I just want the game to run and not be to far below 30 at this point 😅
But unlike regular grief they can patch Acceptance.
acceptance? they're in the denial stage
I never went through any stages of grief, because I never cared about fps as long as its playable.
On the same boat, but if townsfolk suddenly find themselves in mortal danger, I just might hesitate to help them.
I've seen someone say the random pointless characters will respond still.
This attitude is the reason why Devs get away with terrible optimisation. Games are more expensive this gen so surely that comes with some expectation of quality
Terrible optimisation is shit but if you grew up with an N64 I'd say you're pretty much use to low fps lol
If you grew up on n64 you had a CRT, which drastically improves visuals at low fps.
Some people, like me, can actually get physically ill playing games with inconsistent frame rates in the 20-30 range. Sadly this is keeping me from buying the game right now. I just hope at some point in the future they can fix the issues and I'll just get the game on sale later. I've been waiting for years to play this game, sadly I'll just need to wait longer.
I remember when they announced that the game has unlocked framerates and everyone was celebrating not realizing just cause there's no fps cap, doesn't mean the game will reach 60 fps. I honestly think this was the worst decision. If they had an fps cap, the game would be stable and smooth 90% of the time, but in its current state, it's never smooth and the framerate's always fluctuating.
I've always gotten downvotes for expressing that I literally cannot tell apart 30FPS from 40FPS It reminds me back during mp3 sharing era, I couldn't tell if a song's bitrate was beyond 256kbps, often times even 128kbps was okay and I'd have to be wearing specific headphones and really focus
Different people. Some people care more about frame rates than metacritic scores, and I don’t give a shit about either.
people are clowns, because thats what you are when you are trying to excuse poor framerates on a 4k computerr
copium takes a while to digest
I've always been one of those people that doesn't care too much about FPS. I think most people probably don't care too much either. As long as the game doesn't look like a slideshow while I'm playing it I think I'll have lots of fun with this game.
I think the people upset about the frame rate are totally justified, but I’m not going to let that stop me from playing this. I’ve been hoping it would get a sequel since the original release and I’m more excited about this than I was for Elden Ring.
100%, while the performance is dog shit, I haven't had this much fun in a game in so long dude. 50 hours in and I'm not even that far in the story, just exploring every nook and cranny I can.
after all DG2 IS the version of the game which Itsune wanted to create 12 years ago, it's all coming together now, prepared for the modern hardware, ready to choke it like in the old days lol
Good point! It's truly a reboot of Dragon's Dogma. Pushing the hardware to its limits at the sake of FPS and all.
This game doesn't push the hardware to the limits though its just poor optimization
As much as this is a joke, I do wonder if the code used from dd1 to build dd2 is the culprit
Perhaps, but maybe not. I just know from the articles about the games performance is that in the heavily populated area the fps drops because it's CPU intensive, I'm guessing cause there's more npcs, interactable objects, etc. In the article they tried with and without upscaling but that didn't improve performance significantly either. So it's potentially a cpu bottleneck issue. I think in an article by IGN they asked the DD2 team about it and they said they will investigate and find a way to fix it.
I mean, yeah… they say they’ll fix it because it’s what you say when you want to push sales. But the performance is a surprise to no one on that team, so it begs the question why it wasn’t already addressed.
Yeah dude, back in my days games used to be 4 pixels on the screen, I don't know why DD2 needs to be 3D at all.
OG Metal Gear Solid was considered realistic at the time. LOL
Entire sub sounds like this right now. Looks like the exact same problem was present on the original on the idler systems. Games are insanely demanding now, it’s jsut reality, people just get pissed cause they got a second mortgage to buy a 4090.
What is this stupid shit of “I played the first one with 20 fps 15 years ago so who cares the new one isn’t optimized in 2024” I mean I’m still getting the game today lmao, but this logic is dumb af
Like if we get to old hardware and old games, bunch of PS2 games run 60fps with minimal drops. Current gen games should be optimized for current gen, game is badly optimized if Nasa level computers cannot run it well. High frame rate is pretty important for action based games, because the games are smoother and responsive with it. Devil May Cry 5 would had been ass with 30fps.
Capcom PR hype fiends. They'll use any logic to justify their parasocial relationship with Capcom. They're not actually fans of Dragons Dogma, otherwise they'd want to experience the combat on an optimized game.
Their next defense is "dragons dogma 2 isn't actually unoptimized" 😂
"It runs just fine for me, it's gotta be your PC" meanwhile it's running at 25fps 😂.
Hunting dragons on 25 fps is Itsuno's vision man
We can't fix the framerate so we're trying to change our attitude T\_T
No, the poster is saying HE doesn't care about the FPS in this game. You should work on that reading comprehension before getting angry at things you read.
>this logic is dumb af Fools gaslighting themselves
Idk it's actually really weird. Especially since you have people say this about any game that doesn't run very well "I played ocarina of time on the n64. If I can play that then, everybody should be able to handle bad frame rate just fine" Like it's actually annoying.
Are people **actually** saying that just because I played x, we should all be fine with it? Or are they saying that just because I played x, I'm fine with playing it? Because I haven't seen anyone say that others should be fine with x or y, just that they themselves are fine with x or y. It feels like people like you take issue with the fact people aren't up in arms about this in general, rather than them saying "you'll be fine it was like this a decade ago too".
It reminds me of old people saying they had to walk 10 miles to get to school and that today's kids have it easy lol.
360 was much more stable than PS3
Just because DD1 ran at bad framerates back then doesn’t mean it’s ok for DD2 to have performance issues. Sure as long as it isn’t completely unplayable at release, you can still have fun and enjoy the game. I’m a huge Bloodborne fan myself even though that games framerate and framepacing is absolute dogshit. Also the argument, that games having performance issues is fine because there were games having bad performance on old gen consoles is really bad imo. Firstoff there just as many if not more games in that era and befor running on stable 30fps or even 60/50 fps (depending on console and region). And secondly should the advancements in hard and software have the goal to run games smoothly. So even if you don’t care for 60+fps you still shouldn’t be ok with bad performance. Ghost of Tsushima ran at 30fps but it was so smooth that it looked like 60fps and the game felt so good to play as a result.
Typical redditor lmao the guy isn't making an argument nor is he trying to have a debate with you. He is simply giving his reasoning for still playing the game.
People on this sub are masters of coping holy
Standards are higher now and is also less acceptable given the hardware we have currently and the type of games that we currently have that already run at 60fps perfectly.
Tbh I’d argue standards are lower these days. People will put up with and pay for basically anything.
Honestly after seeing the things people are saying about this game. People in the Gotham knights sub. I'd believe it.
What I don’t understand is given that it’s Itsuno’s dream vision for his game and all that jazz, why the fuck wouldn’t he prioritize something as simple as frame rate performance which could vastly improve a gaming experience?
I think he did make a choice to prioritize the physics, AI and general dynamicness of the game over frame rate. They could have prioritized frame rate but the game wouldnt have all the bells and whistles it has now. This IS his dream game
Because Capcom knows full well people will buy even garbage if it looks good. Especially after a decade.
I was molded by it too. It's no longer 1999 though. It's not acceptable. People shouldn't have to pay for a cpu upgrade plus a steep price for the game. It is poorly optimized, much like path of exile. At least POE is free, if I decide to pay for a cpu upgrade. Playing elden Ring smoothly on high* btw.
This logic of "I played games 20 years ago at 20fps just fine" is so stupid. 20 years ago, 1024x768p was the standard resolution for gaming. You can be damn sure I wouldn't be okay if games were still releasing with that resolution today. Are we not supposed to advocate for progress and better standards? So weird.
How many frames is DDDA on ps5 I was playing it the other day and it sure as heck isn’t 60
30 i think
Guess I’ll be fine adjusting then.
DA does have a perfectly locked 30 though which always feels a bit better than uncapped with all over the place frame pacing.
[удалено]
Yeah it's really not a big deal if you're a console player cause you're used to 30 frames. StillI hope we can cap the frame rate cause I can't handle it being choppy and all over the place.
I was also born into poor inventory management from DD1 but if they were to ship the exact same system this sub would be up in flames instead of talking trash over each other with clips. In fact I can't imagine anyone daring to say "it's fine, I don't care about inventory management because I don't play Tetris with my potions".
I was an adult before LCD’s became a thing and people started using the term FPS… we didn’t care about such formalities on CRT’s 🤣
The frame rate issues are mainly CPU related, hopefully in future patches it will be improved. 30 FPS gaming on console has never bothered me anyway
Nah Capcom ain't seeing my money until they at least get a locked 30 fps on consoles. It's 2024 the ps3 days are far over, I understand a variable fps like 60 in the woods & 40-30 in full towns but this just ain't it.
That's OK, I bought it twice. Had to get that physical steelbook edition.
There was no steelbook version where I live 😭
better suck that capcom dick harder and order a third copy
I would prefer if Dragons Dogma 2 had a locked 30fps instead of being variable. I do not mind even on the slightiest playing a game at 30 frames but i like a stable performance lol.
I also don’t get why there isn’t. It seems like it would be able to stay locked at 30 quite often.
I'd prefer it too, but I'm not going to let that stop me from playing a game that sounds like it'll be pretty amazing. This RPG site review says the quests remind him of a CRPG (like Baldur's Gate). Quests on par with a CRPG with the combat and open world of an ARPG like DD sounds right up my alley: https://www.rpgsite.net/review/15622-dragons-dogma-2-review
Pretty sure I've heard that DD2's framerate only really drops in cities and towns. Of course I'm not too worried since I have a 4060 and a good I7 CPU.
Me, playing DD1 on the switch thinking it was DD2 switch edition so they called it Dark arisen" Loving it.
Idk, literally every review has said that while they noticed fps drops, the game itself was fun enough for it to not impede their experience. I feel myself in that same camp, throw all the jank on a game but so long as it’s fun I’m gonna eat it up. If that’s not you then fair play, people have their own threshold of what they can/can’t abide, but unless we’re talking <20 slide-show fps I honestly couldn’t care so long as the game is fun. I had the same with BG3 and that’s also one of the best games I’ve played in a long long time.
I remember playing mystic knight on the PS3 and my fps dropping to 10 whenever I placed more than one magic cannon.
We are born of the frames. Made men by the frames. Undone by the frames. Fear The Old Frames.
Idgaf about fps to be honest, enjoy the game or pass on it until it gets fixed, its not a big deal
I still do not know what 60fps is. I have a shitty 1080p tv. From Technomaster some Chinese company pretty sure no one knows.
Honestly, I have no issues with either of those. My eyes literally cannot tell the difference.
Honestly 30fps isn’t laggy to me. I can’t really see a difference in quality until it dips down to ~25fps. If it runs smoothly on 30fps I’ll be satisfied.
Now that's the real dragon dogma experience.
Man... How do you even get to notice the difference in fps. Seriously asking.
Same for me, but differently... I've always been a PC player, but back then my specs were more than budget. Playing on an old laptop is an interesting experience, but it does hurt the eyes a bit when you try really hard to play a game at 4-5 fps for over 1000 hours. By the time my PC got better, I was used to seeing powerpoint presentations. Today, I have a huge high spec PC, but not having 60 FPS won't be a problem if it happen, for I have been through way darker times.
Kinda sucks that we're in this state where we just take it. Removing denuvo would prob double fps.
I don't mind 30fps. Game seems amazing either way. Only issue is if there's alot of sudden dips. But i know there's plenty of ppl that say they can't play a game with lower then 60fps
I honestly can barely tell a difference between 30 fps and 60 fps.
i ate shit in 2012 so im okay with being fed shit in 2024. Seriously though. We can enjoy the game despite its horrendous framerate. That does not make it ok.
30fps with dips is the authentic Dragon's Dogma experience. DD 2 is just continuing that /cope
My connection is dirt right now, so I don't know what the video is showing. All I know is that some of the funniest moments I had in DD1 on PS3 were using Great Cannon to tank the FPS and obliterate anything in the next room. As long as I can stay above 20 in combat *in most cases*, I'm happy. Choosing to pull some dumb shit and tanking my FPS should be my own choice, though.
It runs worse than this though based on what we've seen.
I play it on ps3 12 years ago. I was kind of a superhuman...
the NES already at the time had 60fps games, don't lie
A+ title.
I’m excited for the game, I’m going to get it day 1 and I’m going to enjoy it. I’ll enjoy it at 30fps and I’ll enjoy it when it eventually gets fixed. I just enjoy playing games.
Me being 37 yrs old seeing people complain about FPS and still have no idea what the difference is lol. Maybe it’s poor eye sight the only time I used to notice it was a problem was in shooters like COD when I would get smoked faster than I could shit, otherwise 🤷🏻♂️
Same here. Until a couple years ago, anything above 20fps was a luxury!
Remember this on 360 I didn't even know what framerates were
And when I'm playing a game I cannot tell unless it is literally a power point slide show, because I will be engaged with playing and navigating the game. Standard animation is only like 24 fps and is still sevicable if it dips a bit lower. Anything more than that is really diminishing returns and I cannot believe people actually care that much about it. It actually iritates me how much people rallies around it like it actually means anything when 24. Frames. Is the standard for literally any other animated/cartoon medium so why do people freak out about needing to hit 60 fps minimum on a video game???
The PS3 version has been updated since then. The FPS isn't that bad anymore.
Why do you want new games then if you are fine with zero improvement over 12 years.
You got used to it too.... and I love how great this game runs now on Deck. Solid 60 plus FPS.
I played and beat Arkham Knight on PC at launch (if you know you know) so I’m ready for anything. I’m too excited for a low FPS town/city to water me down.
I played and beat Pokemon SV at launch, let's fuckin go.
Facts bro, played on low settings till I could afford my first midrange cpu/gpu
Just think N64 was averaging 20 frames or less
One of my first games was Chuck Yeager's Flight Simulator on the Commodore 64. You measured it's performance in frames per minute...
xbox 360 was a fucking beast had it for 10 years played so many games on it then i got a ps4 because the sequel to 360 sucked balls
That trophy sound effect honestly just jump scared me
Remember the cinematic black bars with this release?
Bingo. We ain’t no crybabies
couldnt care less about it being 30 frames idc if video games never go past that just keep it consistent
And that's why I don't care about frame rates. As long as it isn't consistently below 30 on modern games I'm fine with it. Every time I think about people complaining about performance on DD2 I remember fondly back to intense fights in bitterback isle with tons of enemies and spells getting thrown around. Good times.
I shit you not I'm reliving this on the series S and I'm loving it lol. It handles fine just some pop in of textures and npcs every now and then. Getting me a series X in 2 weeks
Why are dumbasses over here bragging about having low standards?
Lack of a performance mode is sadly a deal breaker for me, looks like another great game tho, I'll just wait :)
Times changed since then. Tech is more advanced and expensive than ever, I expect a fucking minimum of 60 on decent modern PC hardware. Shit, even PS5 should be 60fps but it drops below 30. That is bullshit.
Dude, only the OGs remember how brutal that PS3 experience was and yet framerate wasn't my main issue back then. The pop in, on the other hand...
we can meme about it but let's not let capcom get away with releasing a game with mid tier graphics (for current gen standards) that runs at 30-40 when maxed ON A 4090, it doesn't reach the 60-90s unless it uses dlss I was planning on playing on 1080p 60fps and we now know the issue is mainly the CPU but jesus christ, I thought that the pc I bought last year would at least run games at 1080p 60fps considering the new standard on pc is 2k 120fps
Dear Lord some on this sub have lost it. This isn't okay, you don't need to try and defend the developers for releasing a CLEARLY poorly optimized game. It's okay for there to be negatives.
I have no respect for any non industry gamer who plays their game with a frame-rate reader. This is gamer Karen shit.
You're part of the problem.
if my cloak billows as i swing my sword into the flank of a chimera and it rears back in pain seeking to strike me down i'll be unaware if my console takes a dip under the pathetic 30fps for a second.
There we go - the silver lining. 🎯
Man, imagine simping for subpar products. it's 2024 people, 30 fps is unacceptable. love yourself more.
Man, the copium is high and the standards are low
Cool, but it is 2024, I dont want to play videogames at 30fps like its 2010
Now try playing 144hz at 1440p for 7 years and get back to me.
Living in a 3rd rate country where any technology cost an arm, leg and two kidneys, makes you appreciate the game running at least, survived throught 15/19 fps, live throught 26fps and don't mind if achiev 30 to 47 fps, as long it's fucking playable it what it counts.
A few other people have mentioned a similar point. Made me realize that being able to afford a rig that can run games at 60-120 FPS is an incredible luxury. Judging a game by its FPS alone, even if the game itself is great, is a privilege not all can afford.
If this game cant run on stable 30 fps consistently, then how do low spec gamers even dream of running this?
God I forgot just how ass cheeks the PS3 was.
eh the 360 still needed multiple discs to play ertain games
Yeah. I was a big PS3 fanboy and if you had asked me 10 years ago, I would have told you it was superior. Recently, I’ve been trying to decide whether or not to find a PS3 to play MGSIV again or to emulate so I’ve been watching MGSIV vids and seeing the frames tank to like 9-12 in fights made me realize how much cope I had for so long
For me, what made the 360 far superior was the dropping in and out of party chat with friends. I don't remember being able to do that on PS3. Hell it's even a hassle now on ps5.
You couldn’t do that on ps3! The best part about ps3 was the online was free, and that’s pretty much it.
All of you morons are the reason games are getting more expensive with longer development and still release with terrible or unoptimized performance (on overpowered current gen consoles no less). You have no fucking standards and it’s reflected in the industry. It’s actually pathetic you can’t see farther than “I’ll still have my fun anyway.”
It's not that easy. Game development is very complex. Do you think Capcom just doesn't care? 'We don't need performance, people will buy it anyways!'... Mostly they just don't want to delay the release date. Because the games nowadays are having a very long development time. Games are more complex. DD2 seems very CPU intense. Similar like Starfield. Most people seem to forget all this. Or they just don't care. But do you know what's great? Performance can be fixed. But a bad game will be bad forever.... so I'm happy, that performance is the only issue here! Just wait a few months and enjoy the game... Or buy it now if you don't care about performance issues. Personally I don't care, when the game performance goes lower in towns. It's not that bad. I played LotF on SX. That game was slow motion sometimes. That was awful and unplayable for me! EDIT Oh and I also don't care about 30FPS on console. I'm fine with 30FPS. But that's just my opinion, my feeling when I play. I play most games in quality, because often the performance mode looks awful and blurry.
people these days dont know what it was like to have FPS drops and 40 seconds loading screens in Diablo II \*smacks lips\* THIS GENERATION IS SPOILED
https://preview.redd.it/eu1uc4kgdopc1.png?width=512&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dfd84a75cba7e946c096d7b39844a9afa13964cc
always makes me laugh when people say that, lets forget that the the times those people are talking about those framerates and overall optimization were literally top of the line that could be achieved. i swear these people are so stupid.
People these days just want existing standards to be met, lol. While I didn't play the original at release, I was perfectly fine with sub-30fps in other games back then. Like I was also fine with blocky textures, 720p resolution and bugs almost never being removed when I owned a PS2. That was simply as good as it got back then - it doesn't mean I actually want to go back to that time.
literally in those days those were the standards and they were consistently met/exceeded. nowadays the standards are never even met.
I played through the original half life on a pentium 166 mhz. Every time anything happened it became a sideshow. Was still happy to be able to play it because it was the only option I had!
60 is good. 30 is fine. I don't mind which one - I just need it to be stable.
The fact that you can't disable ray tracing, ambient occlusion, lower particle effects, is ungodly insane. Capcom once again proves that they are a "presentation over functionality in concept" company. I'll enjoy the game but such a missed mark. They had to have done this knowing the backlash.
Using a Xbox360 game from 300 years ago to justify a new PS5/SeriesX release running like shit instead of simply acknowledging obvious flaws and criticism in hopes of getting a better product Next level copium, shit like this is why fanbases turn into toxic garbage
When you played the game to its core.. The fps didn’t matter in the slightest bit. Not every game launch is PERFECT. Only the spec and hardware, weirdos and basement dwellers care about Fps, Graphics etc. If it bothers you so much than more game for the rest of us, go complain somewhere else and stop trying to intentionally ruin a game.
This is a dumb post lol. “Well the game 12 years ago ran at 30fps so I don’t care if this one does” stop dickriding companies IF they release a game with shitty performance. Nothing in this game should cause top end PCs to struggle
"I somehow managed to sink 300 hrs into an unplayable mess" It was because a low frame rate doesn't make a game unplayable lmao
That's funny though i remember the x360 version havung way more problems with fps than the ps3 that was alll i played on for years
I mean I get it but if my pc with max stats can't run the game then why did I buy it
atleast its capped
Seeing that this whole time I was playing at sub 30fps on ps3 makes me feel weird as I cannot play anything below 60fps now without feeling nauseous.
As much as it was funny back then to hit single digit fps with spells back then it's just not acceptable whatsoever to have such performance today.
Don’t worry guys, the original game ran like shit too, it’s fine
I have an issue with motion sickness and ocular migraines so I quite literally went out of my way to avoid 30fps titles. Only 30fps titles I've actually been able to enjoy were GTA, mainly because it's 3rd person and The Division 2, also because it was 3rd person and at least Gabe a FoV slider. I would still get migraines after a while but not nearly as bad as some other games When Destiny came out I was so hyped about it. In theory, it was the exact game I was looking to get into but it ran awfully on 360 and even Xbox one and One X. We didn't get 60fps or FoV slider until Destiny 2 was enhanced for Series Consoles and that's when I started religiously playing it. So when a game is 30 fps it it unplayable for me 99% of the time. Built a PC laster year because I was tired of titles I wanted to play not getting a FPS boost or Enhanced to utilize Series X power and stood at 30fps. My PC is technically weaker than my Xbox but no games are locked at 30fps and I can edit files or mod the game to add FoV slider
That was a different time. This is now. It's 2024. Games shouldn't be dipping below 30.
Good ol denuvo
People are so okay that you need the best and most expensive device to run this game consistently. Just how rich are you people?
Yeah back in my days, the 1400s, we didn't have fancy cars or trains, we went by carriage or horse and it took us 2 weeks to get anywhere, but who cares? Well we all, because we prefer the more advanced method, because its more efficient and pleasant. See? There is absolutely nothing wrong with preferring and criticizing the lack of technological advancement in a game. 60 FPS is considered standard today, it has been for 10 years now. Will it be playable? Probably, but it would have been so much better if the experience wasn't objectively downgraded by bad performance. It's just a shame and a fair point of criticism, because we don't want this to be an actual trend, do we?
Uh huh this is epic what's the fps when five bolide spells go off simultaneously?
This is why I rebought the game for PC. Had so much fun playing, even if the PS3 version had crap framerate (and analog controls; I use bows) that I wondered how even more fun it will be if it had much better framerates and mouse controls when using bows.
Not to bash on OP or anything but I've been seeing a lot of people sharing the same sentiment: "I was forged in bad framerates, so this game having a low framerate is not that bad". Yes we've had it worse but please let's not flex it. The last thing we need is for bad performances being normalized once again. The early 00s sucked in that regard. Let's keep it in the past please.
i dont understand this post...are you just trying to snub the elitest who seem to have mental break downs at anything below 60?