sub-30 fps with input lags lol
Why the PS4 is better than the X1(160 posts)
@ DrDamn. I'm surprised you're still trying to use actual logical arguments against him. But then again so do I..
@Super3001: I've just gotta say, you're the worst troll I've ever seen on the internet super. Sorry that I acknowledged your existence for a second there, I'll let you get back to being sublimely ignorable now.
Was actually playable at E3 lol.
Ah no, I've done that wrong haven't I? I did manage to use 'lol' but I've only gone and capitalised my sentence and used punctuation. :/
playable with sub 30fps an input lag lol
who cares about killzone anyway is not good games
@DrDamn it's strange how everyone's suddenly referring to those Digital Foundry articles isn't it? I mean even trolls, and this is high-brow literature! It's a disgrace really.
It's been like this for a while now, but it feels like this whole discussion is more about shooters than the consoles.
"This has been the entirety of my point, and you agree with me. So where's the problem?"
The problem is you then go to this....
"Killzone not running in 1080/60, while Titanfall does, is just one single example that I could use."
Titanfall uses a old known engine with enhancements, which as I stated before, probably doesnt have all the bells and whistles of the newer engine KZ:SF uses. We don't know the differences in polygon complexity, lighting, textures, filter, antialiasing, tessellation, etc etc, between the two games. Without having comparison numbers and stats, how can you really compare them? Your argument isnt logical is all I am saying.
Titanfall is a new game using an old engine built for large numbers of people to play multiplayer. KZ:SF is mainly a single player FPS that is targeting level complexity to be a next gen launch game. I don't know anything about KZ:SF's multiplayer yet, it could be like the HALO games where the multiplayer takes less complex design compared to the single player.
Apples and oranges you are comparing. Thats my point.
@fearmonkey between all of us we must've repeated this about a million times for G1GA already. I think I started explaining this to him like 2-3 pages ago...
For someone who doesn't care, you sure do spend a lot of time telling as many people as you can, just how much you don't care.
Says a lot, really.
Don't know about the games?
We know how they look, both static and moving.
I don't see a single thing that KZ is doing that would necessitate its fps issues.
Please forget about all of these "bells and whistles" that there is no evidence for so far. Neither the screens or the videos give us any indication of such a thing.
IYAM, Titanfall looks sharper, with way more textural detail, and it's running at 60fps.
Sony's biggest 1st party FPS doesn't appear to be matching up, so it definitely backs up my original point, once again, even though the PS4 has the 'super RAM', and the 'ultra GFX chip'.
You can't see any difference in the scope, geometry, effects there at all? Really? I mean those are your chosen pictures too.
You can have a preference based on art style, but one is clearly chucking around a lot more to me.
Killzone uses a tonne of visual effects and has a load of obvious post processing techniques running on top of itself, whereas Titanfall has a clean but rather flat and barren look to it's graphics.
It's like comparing Battlefield's graphics to Call of Duty's.
Who cares though? All they matters is if the gameplay is any good.
yeah, I see one game with a whole lot of generic, low poly blocks that are supposed to be buildings, and cookie cutter trees with pre-baked shadows.
Yeah, I see objects with plain, fuzzy textures on them.
Yeah, I see camera smear and lens blur.
Sure, what you like is generally down to artistic preferences, but technically, where's the money shot?
No way. Killzone just looks fuzzy and blurry in places, just like previous versions. If that's what you call post processing techniques, then they must be doing it wrong.
And, again, it's not even giving the a stable 30fps.
Tf is sharp, clear, detailed, all running at 60fps.
There's no power advantage being used there.
Also forgetting Titan Fall has been in development for an absolute age now, and as people have already stated, is using a tried and tested old engine.
Even Halflife 2 can look decent with all the graphics mods...
Killzone should look a little better after polish.
Titanfall looks like an arena based shooter, the racing games of FPS's...
Low poly count buildings is what I thought of Titanfall. The over all look is nice enough but they've optimised for speed by removing complexity. Take a look at these, that main skyscraper with reflections, curved glass, water, is that what you meant by low poly?
Giga - I agree with Wildboar on this, I am not going round and round on it lol. DrDamn, Monkeygourmet, and Michael are spot on in their assessments, I don't need to go further, and like Michael said, it really only matters if its fun.
Using your own screenshots, you don't see a difference in complexity? really?
Arguing with you about this is like arguing which beach is the prettiest to a blind man. At this point it's obvious your arguing for argument's sake.
I am reminded of this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y
Of course not. That's a focal point of the level, so obviously they're going to put more detail into it.
I'm talking about all of the generic, filler buildings with the flat, repeated textures, and the cookie cutter trees.
You've also got shadow-less people walking around next to objects with shadows, so it doesn't appear to be doing anything super special with lighting, either.
In fact, the more I look at this game, the more I wonder exactly what reason they could possibly have to be struggling with the frame rate.
BF4 looks much better than this, but doesn't seem to have the problem.
I do actually. I'd say that this: http://gamerhorizon.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/image_titanfall-22359-2742_0018.jpg
Is far more complex than this: http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/0mKLy_hxQeI/maxresdefault.jpg
But hey, since you're not arguing for arguments sake, you'll clearly admit which one has the more detail, the sharper textures the more realistic shadows and the better flames...
...Or maybe not.
Where did you find that shitty compressed to death picture? Still if it helps prove your point ...
^ Look at it again, then look at the HUD in the bottom left and bottom right corners, and the cross hairs in the center of the screen.
Crystal clear and sharp.
Then try and make yourself believe that it's "compressed to death".
If you're honest, you'll admit that it's not.
That's how compression works. Stuff which is still (i.e the hud) is sharper than stuff which moves. It's a screen grab from a video not proper output. Even the HUD has plenty of compression artefacts around it.
Stuff which is still (i.e the hud) is sharper than stuff which moves.
No, that's not how compression works in any way, shape or form.
Everything becomes compressed, and fine lines, like those on the HUD disappear, or get blended into other shapes. Like this: http://www.justpushstart.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/killzone-shadow-fall-dualshock-4.jpg
Motion blur is a completely different issue, but even then, almost everything in that screen isn't moving. Especially the wall, with it's terribly low poly textures.
Still. That's fine. Here is an image with zero artifacts around the HUD, and it looks exactly the same: http://i.imgur.com/LZVNRNv.jpg
You can clearly see the motion blur on the gun, because it's moving between frames as the screen in being taken. But just look at those stretched textures on the wall, which isn't moving. They look like they came from a PS1 game.
That's how *video* compression works. Your example above is picture compression. The poor example you posted was a screen grab from a video suffering from video compression.
Ok, let's just say that it is...
Like I just said on my previous comment, this one http://i.imgur.com/LZVNRNv.jpg clearly isn't, and it suffers from the same lack of detail, the same poor textures, the same random shadows and the same unrealistic flames.
Even if we scale this up to 2560x1440 like the bullshots that you posted before, those problems still don't disappear.
Just look at that wall.
Comparing two WIP games, very constructive...
G1GANOOB spreads bullshit about TF, Respawn and Call Of Duty.
Michael is right. Killzone is full of post-processing effects. There are a ton of effects, shadow bokeh and other stuff that requires additional processing and graphical power. Not to mention that the engine in Killzone:SF has much bigger maps.
Titanfall will never have gigantic environment around the player because Source engine is very limited in it, TF will never have the same animation compared to Shadow Fall because it uses old blended skeletal animation system.
but G1GANOOb has zero knowledge about game development or that game at all (he never played games at all except for CoD anyway) trying to prove that someone is wrong.
"Tf is sharp, clear, detailed, all running at 60fps."
because it is based on the old SOURCE ENGINE. Valve don't even make FPS games on it anymore and developing next one. They are using it for STRATEGY/MOBA game like DOTA because it is outdated and it's image base rendering is old already.
and source engine in reality is not very friendly with developers. One of the biggest criticism's about it's engine that it is not very friendly with devs.
Titanfall looks good because engine for awhile can show good stuff, but it's going to be the same thing if they will continue to develop on it like with CoD that uses 1999 year old ID TECH 3. Source engine is a 2004 baby. It's last gen engine, it's not old but dated even if Valve updated it with effects and stuff.
Battlefield 4 for example is very impressive and it's technology is up to date and in 60 FRAMES PER SECOND on consoles which is massively impressive.
BAN G1GANOOB PLEASE!
@Gigahurtz - I've said I don't care about Titanfall, and our previous discussion. Haven't said I don't care about chatting with the sensible people in this thread.
And I see you still don't understand what target framerate in game design means.
Better get some more people into this thread before we're all too tired to indulge you.
KZ is due for release in just over 5 months.
That means that it has to go gold in at least 3.
Given that devs often work on development builds up until the same day that they show them off, I'd say that what they showed at E3 is about as close to the final version of that level as you're going to get.
That looks better than the old pics you are posting, just saying...
That first Titanfall shot you posted. That's not a bullshot? Really? IQ is magnitudes greater than the more obvious in game shots.
Let's wait until release and compare then.
@G1GA - How do we know that the demo showed wasn't based on an early build?
All I'm saying is to wait for the final release, then we can jump in our trenches and load our machine guns! :P
You must log in to post.