Support NeoGAF

[OneOneSeven]

Were the PS3/360 your first consoles or something?
PS2 had a crapton of 60FPS games and it was the standard for racing and action games.

60FPS was definitely a thing on consoles.

The point is that these things didn't matter as much before.

There was no digital foundry giving console warriors fresh ammo every time a new game comes out.

The first few years of multiplatform games on 360 and PS3 were very similar. PS3 versions ran worse and looked worse than their 360 counterparts. How much is debatable but PS3 development didn't start off great and that is a fact. That trend continued for years and the vast majority of 360 games looked better or ran better all the way until the current consoles were released.

At that time it wasn't such a big deal. If someone only had a PS3 and played those versions, it was fine. No one threw their hands up in the air when a PS3 owner played the PS3 versions.

Now if someone goes for the xbox one version, it's a crime against humanity and a clear sign that anyone who would do that is an idiot.

It bothers me because Sony fans were in this same exact place last generation in terms of multiplatform games. It stayed that way for years and they had no problems with playing the PS3 versions. Now that the tables have turned, it's the biggest deal in gaming history.

I can understand the weight of a chip on your shoulder for an entire generation, but as far as I can remember, people didn't make a big deal out of 360 versions being better last generation.

 

[CaptNink]

I mostly just get annoyed with comments like this that assume X1 owners had no idea what they were getting into when they opted to pick up third party games on the weaker console

Bingo!

 

[Protome]

Nope, my first console was actually a NES. Only thing I stated, before this generation is no magazines or PR or software houses promoted their games with 60 FPS awesomeness.
The fact there are 60 FPS titles on PS2 or older console too it's not the point. Sony didn't promote Gran Turismo 5 with "Solid 60 fps" (I don't know if the game has 60 fps, it's just to bring an example).

It's a thing appeard with PS4/One generation. I didn't say before this gen there weren't 60 fps titles.
I only said no one cared about.

Well I still disagree with you there. Games like MGS2 were praised for their use of 60FPS, racing and action games which didn't run at 60 were criticised heavily. Maybe you could argue that specifically PR companies didn't use "60FPS" as a selling point as much back then but given that most of its usage this generation has been in remasters/ports I don't think that's a relevant point either. Saying nobody cared about it is by no exaggeration completely and utterly wrong.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

It's baffling to me that this isn't locked at 60 on either console. It's ironic that From's PC optimization is better than their console work.

 

[Inuhanyou]

REALLY? it's been a pretty big deal this generation... You don't remember MS proudly touting that forza 5 was 1080p/60 FPS at the Xbox reveal or E3... How about Adam Boyes proudly getting on stage at EAs press conference last year to proudly state that
battlefield Hardline would be 1080p/60...

Prior to this generation I knew very little about framerate and resolution. It's been so front and center thanks to the media, fanboys, and PR that I'm now pretty well versed in it... Ignorance is Bliss however.

Now we have all these remaster touting next gen visuals with 1080p and 60fps... That alone is selling people on games now.

Not before release no, i don't recall any official outlets or PR talking about res or FPS in regards to what every game on the console was supposed to be doing standard.

Individual game devs like ND were months after launch. Only one i can even recall talking about 60fps prior to launch was Guerilla, and they fucked up and got hit by a lawsuit.

What i'm talking about is people claiming PR saying all games will be 1080p60fps, as if that makes any sense for anyone to completely say for all scenarios regardless of the genre type or amount of pixels pushed

 

[Orayn]

It's baffling to me that this isn't locked at 60 on either console. It's ironic that From's PC optimization is better than their console work.

It's more a matter of brute force than optimization; most people playing Dark Souls II have a CPU that runs circles around the new consoles.

 

[Javin98]

Well, we don't know about MGSV yet, we'll discover it on Septermber, but I agree with you.
Each game is different from another. Thinking a game like Witcher 3 can achieve 60 FPS is pure madness, even on PC (if now with VERY high-end hardwares). Otherwise achieving 60 FPS on, let's say, Braid, it's easy.

And this just because, as I wrote, there are demanding titles and less demanding titles. And of course it also count if a developer is good enough to do his job, optimizing the game, using the hardware he's working on full potential etc.

Too many factors, really. This 1080p/60 fps thing simply backfired on the industry itself that launched it in the first place as a feature.

I'll be extremely surprised if MGSV:TPP is anything below 1080p on PS4. The frame rate in GZ is practically locked, so I'm expecting the same for TPP, albeit with slightly more drops due to the bigger maps and it does look better, though I think it's mostly because of optimization. Anyway, I agree. 1080p at rock solid 30FPS, let alone 60FPS can only be achieved if devs optimize well and/or use the PS4 to its full potential.

 

[Inuhanyou]

^ You should make it more clear in your statement, so people dont get confused

It's baffling to me that this isn't locked at 60 on either console. It's ironic that From's PC optimization is better than their console work.

Er...have you played Scholar of the first sin on PC yet?

I also have a problem with people saying "i got such and such performance on my PC, this is embarrassing!" as if they were not throwing tons more enemies, more improved effects and better 'lighting' on screen at the same time than the vanilla PC/console versions people are comparing it with.

DF even says the enemy count is triple, even quadruple the amount in many scenes than it is in the original game.

You can't compare them until you've drawn proper conclusions for yourself in this DX11 version.

They might have been locked 60(or atleast PS4) if they didn't have the improved things to contend with, but that would be boring.

 

[Pop]

LOL, it seems like we're back to chasing the 1080p/60 dream on consoles. I, for one, love that we have been getting quite a large amount of 1080p/60 games which look great IMO (Metro Redux, TLOU:R, MGSV) on PS4 but hoping that it becomes a standard is pure insanity.
P.S. Not referring to anyone hoping for it, just speaking in general.

48fps at the lowest isn't even that bad

Take the fps tracker away and you'll hardly notice. 60fps locked would be great, perfect really. Like any other game, ever produced. But hearing the same tired nagging stuff over and over gets old really fast.

 

[seabass0]

Man, I had no idea they were even trying to target 60 fps on consoles. I was gonna get this anyway on PS4, but this just cements it. Can't wait.

Are DLCs on disc ? I want it on PS4 since this is the easiest souls game to platinum.

Yes

 

[Javin98]

Er...have you played Scholar of the first sin on PC yet?

I also have a problem with people saying "i got such and such performance on my PC, this is embarrassing!" as if they were not throwing tons more enemies, more improved effects and better 'lighting' on screen at the same time than the vanilla PC/console versions people are comparing it with.

DF even says the enemy count is triple, even quadruple the amount in many scenes than it is in the original game.

You can't compare them until you've drawn proper conclusions for yourself in this DX11 version

This! Most of the drive by posters here just say they are surprised that the console versions cannot run at a locked 60FPS when their mid range PC's can aren't even taking into account that Scholar Of The First Sin has better effects, lighting and higher enemy count, which will definitely impact performance significantly.

48fps at the lowest isn't even that bad

Take the fps tracker away and you'll hardly notice. 60fps locked would be great, perfect really. Like any other game, ever produced. But hearing the same tired nagging stuff over and over gets old really fast.

I agree. I myself can't tell a 5-6FPS drop on a 60FPS game but I can probably tell a drop to 48FPS. It is extremely rare though. The PS4 version seems to stay at 50-60FPS all the time.

 

[zma1013]

So are there any substantial Dark Souls 2 mods on PC besides ENB graphical tweaks? Got a friend who may play this on PS4 and was trying to decide between the that or PC.

 

[LordBaztion]

Would have preffered 900p

 

[BibiMaghoo]

Would have preffered 900p

You can't please everyone though. Lower graphical settings is worse PR than a 10fps average difference.

 

[Kenzodielocke]

I wonder if the Xbox One version will outsell the PS4 one, because of Bloodborne.

 

[USC-fan]

You can't please everyone though. Lower graphical settings is worse PR than a 10fps average difference.

There is always 1080pr

 

[dsp]

I just want the lighting from the first demos we were shown. Shame we'll never get that. It's never looked quite right without it.

 

[Marlenus]

48fps at the lowest isn't even that bad

Take the fps tracker away and you'll hardly notice. 60fps locked would be great, perfect really. Like any other game, ever produced. But hearing the same tired nagging stuff over and over gets old really fast.

Looking at the data and making the assumption that the number of frames in the chart (20,480) is based on the 60 FPS target the PS4 manages 59.1 FPS on average with a minimum of 48 and the Xbox One manages a 55.4 FPS average with a minimum of 36 FPS. That seems pretty close to the target to me so not sure why people are complaining to be honest.

 

[Stallion Free]

This! Most of the drive by posters here just say they are surprised that the console versions cannot run at a locked 60FPS when their mid range PC's can aren't even taking into account that Scholar Of The First Sin has better effects, lighting and higher enemy count, which will definitely impact performance significantly.

I got 60 fps at 4K in the original release on a 970 and I get 60 fps at 4K in SOTFS. Seems fine to me.

 

[Struct09]

So weapons are more durable in the Xbox One version?

EDIT: Beaten so badly

 

[dark10x]

I got 60 fps at 4K in the original release on a 970 and I get 60 fps at 4K in SOTFS. Seems fine to me.

I wouldn't say that's mid-range hardware, though. Not the highest end, of course, but still relatively high-end.

I suspect it'll run similarly to the original release on most PCs, though.

 

[dark10x]

Because PR pushed hard on this 60 fps thing. Before PS4 and One 60 fps on console was never a thing. Hell, FPS at all was never a thing.

But on One/PS4, PR started to promote this thing like a magic wand, so people now wants 1080p/60 fps. Easy.

This just isn't true.

Where have you been?

It was definitely a thing during the PS2 era, as others have noted, but it was also taken for granted during the 8 and 16-bit days since 99% of console games ran at 60 fps. During the 32-bit generation games pulling off 60 fps were considered a big deal.

Console wars have raged for decades and what we have today is nothing new.

 

[Inuhanyou]

^ That's true, by the same token, people consider 30fps a 'new thing', unfairly 'for those devs who just want pretty screenshots', without taking into account like you said, that 30fps(and below) games have been around for a long ass time.

I wouldn't say that's mid-range hardware, though. Not the highest end, of course, but still relatively high-end.

I suspect it'll run similarly to the original release on most PCs, though.

My point being, that the CPU's of the consoles are being stressed adding in all those new effects far more than they would have been just going for the vanilla game's presets. So expecting 60fps because of one's experience with the vanilla game doesn't mesh.

 

[BigLee74]

Looking at the data and making the assumption that the number of frames in the chart (20,480) is based on the 60 FPS target the PS4 manages 59.1 FPS on average with a minimum of 48 and the Xbox One manages a 55.4 FPS average with a minimum of 36 FPS. That seems pretty close to the target to me so not sure why people are complaining to be honest.

Stop it now. You are making way too much sense, and those average figures are surely going to upset a few people - you know - the type that like to think the high/average on machine A compared to the one low on machine B is the ALWAYS CONSTANT AND TRUE DIFFERENCE OF POWER.

Having tried Dark Souls on the 360 and throwing it away in disgust at the graphics/frame rate, this looks like something that may finally be worth trying. I think I'll pick it up.

 

[Ysiadmihi]

It's more a matter of brute force than optimization; most people playing Dark Souls II have a CPU that runs circles around the new consoles.

I don't think that's all there is to it, though. Even the lazy port of DS1 ran great on midrange hardware, mods and all.

Er...have you played Scholar of the first sin on PC yet?

I also have a problem with people saying "i got such and such performance on my PC, this is embarrassing!" as if they were not throwing tons more enemies, more improved effects and better 'lighting' on screen at the same time than the vanilla PC/console versions people are comparing it with.

DF even says the enemy count is triple, even quadruple the amount in many scenes than it is in the original game.

You can't compare them until you've drawn proper conclusions for yourself in this DX11 version.

They might have been locked 60(or atleast PS4) if they didn't have the improved things to contend with, but that would be boring.

Given how well DS1 and 2 ran without high end hardware, I wouldn't worry about PC performance unless we're looking at a pre-fix Revelations 2 situation.

 

[Bl@de]

So are there any substantial Dark Souls 2 mods on PC besides ENB graphical tweaks? Got a friend who may play this on PS4 and was trying to decide between the that or PC.

Some minor visual mods and other stuff but nothing fancy. And mods are for the DX9 original. I don't think there are mods for the Dx11 version. PC if you want 4K and 60fps (if you have a 970 or 780 ti). So it really comes down to price and preference.

 

[Schryver]

Still can't decide if I want PC or PS4 version. I will be playing both on my TV anyways so I should probably just go PC. Won't be deciding for a few months though so I will wait for sales probably.

 

[Chobel]

Same boat here... I'm still picking this one up on Xbox regardless of the larger framerate dips... I personally was just glad to see that it actually hit the 1080P resolution after it not really being confirmed. I'm right into Bloodborne right now though so it'll be probably a few weeks or longer before I get around to playing this.

I'm curious, why are you choosing XB1 version instead of PS4 version?

 

[BabyFaceKillah]

sucks to hear the frame dips are worse on XB1 but i expected it.. still getting that version

 

[ironcreed]

I'm curious, why are you choosing XB1 version instead of PS4 version?

I have a PS4 and am doing the same. It was up for pre-load weeks ago and I jumped on it. In addition, I have Bloodborne on PS4, so it is nice to have a Souls game on my Xbox One as well.

EDIT: Another thing of note is that even with the frame dips here and there, it will still run better than Bloodborne does. No complaints here.

 

[DarthWalden]

I'm curious, why are you choosing XB1 version instead of PS4 version?

Controller, online connectivity/freinds , and achievements.

The fact that I use it to watch TV and Netflix also helps in that it's usually on and requires not setup when I want to play.

I pretty much do all my multiplatform gaming on XB1 but I will make exceptions for single player experiences with large graphical gaps like with MGS.

 

[AgentOtaku]

Controller, online connectivity/freinds , and achievements.

The fact that I use it to watch TV and Netflix also helps in that it's usually on and requires not setup when I want to play.

I pretty much do all my multiplatform gaming on XB1 but I will make exceptions for single player experiences with large graphical gaps like with MGS.

Ditto, which is crazy for me as it was all PS3 last gen as I didn't care for the 360 at all outside of the software itself.
Im a pretty big Sony fanboy but vastly prefer the X1 controller and overall hardware.

Still havent decided what I want to pick this up on but im leaning towards X1 just because I already have BB on PS4

 

[OneOneSeven]

Controller, online connectivity/freinds , and achievements.

The fact that I use it to watch TV and Netflix also helps in that it's usually on and requires not setup when I want to play.

I pretty much do all my multiplatform gaming on XB1 but I will make exceptions for single player experiences with large graphical gaps like with MGS.

The controller is the biggest issue for me.

I would like the PS4 performance, but I hate the dual shock 4. I had a good time with Bloodborne, but I curse the controller every time I have to play something with it.

I would be much happier at 900p with a more solid frame rate.

Still not sure what I'm going to do.

 

[ironcreed]

The controller is the biggest issue for me.

I would like the PS4 performance, but I hate the dual shock 4. I had a good time with Bloodborne, but I curse the controller every time I have to play something with it.

I would be much happier at 900p with a more solid frame rate.

Still not sure what I'm going to do.

Look at it this way, it is still going to run better than Bloodborne. If you enjoyed that with dips below 30, I think you will be fine with mostly 60fps, but with a few dips into the 30's here and there.

 

[KainXVIII]

Controller, online connectivity/freinds , and achievements.

The fact that I use it to watch TV and Netflix also helps in that it's usually on and requires not setup when I want to play.

I pretty much do all my multiplatform gaming on XB1 but I will make exceptions for single player experiences with large graphical gaps like with MGS.

I don't know, i hate shitty xbone bumpers, for shields builds it pain to play.

 

[AgentOtaku]

I don't know, i hate shitty xbone bumpers, for shields builds it pain to play.

Yeah, switching L1/R1 to L2/R2 is pretty damn amazing on PS4. Never liked that the souls games kept it the same way for 360 and now XB1, as your bumpers dont feel right as a primary input.
Thankfully I love the XB1's bumpers... more so than the, DS4's L1/R1.

 

[Derpyduck]

Look at it this way, it is still going to run better than Bloodborne. If you enjoyed that with dips below 30, I think you will be fine with mostly 60fps, but with a few dips into the 30's here and there.

It's not even the dips below 30 that bother me in BB, it's the constant frame pacing issues that make the game appear to be stuttering all the time that bothered me enough to put the game down until they fix it. Still contemplating if I want to spend 60 on this. The setting just isn't doing it for me compared to BB. Kinda tired of the clangy armor aesthetic.

I don't know, i hate shitty xbone bumpers, for shields builds it pain to play.

It's incredibly easy if you use the bumpers as they were designed. Problem is MS doesn't really explain their intent with those bumpers and people still try to hit them with the tips of their fingers.

 

[dark10x]

Uhu, did you read all my post about the argument? I think you didn't, clearly.

I did and disagree. I think you're way off base.

 

[AgentOtaku]

It's incredibly easy if you use the bumpers as they were designed. Problem is MS doesn't really explain their intent with those bumpers and people still try to hit them with the tips of their fingers.

EXACTLY!

 

[Percy]

Look at it this way, it is still going to run better than Bloodborne. If you enjoyed that with dips below 30, I think you will be fine with mostly 60fps, but with a few dips into the 30's here and there.

This lame false equivalance needs to be posted more I feel.

 

[Journey]

I have a PS4 and am doing the same. It was up for pre-load weeks ago and I jumped on it. In addition, I have Bloodborne on PS4, so it is nice to have a Souls game on my Xbox One as well.

EDIT: Another thing of note is that even with the frame dips here and there, it will still run better than Bloodborne does. No complaints here.

 

[Head.spawn]

This is another case where they should've dropped the resolution on Xbox One. Maybe one of those weird Halo 2/Far Cry 4 resolutions or something; I don't understand why they favor resolution to performance, it just seems completely ass backwards.

 

[dark10x]

Look at it this way, it is still going to run better than Bloodborne. If you enjoyed that with dips below 30, I think you will be fine with mostly 60fps, but with a few dips into the 30's here and there.

Bloodborne is pretty bad due to frame pacing problems but I would actually take a locked 30fps over what we're seeing in DS2 on XO. It's just too variable. If I were on a PC with such performance I'd lock it down too or drop settings.

 

[Derpyduck]

Bloodborne is pretty bad due to frame pacing problems but I would actually take a locked 30fps over what we're seeing in DS2 on XO. It's just too variable. If I were on a PC with such performance I'd lock it down too or drop settings.

I'd drop the resolution to 900 to get 60 before I'd ever drop to 30 just to keep 1080p.

 

[DarthWalden]

The controller is the biggest issue for me.

I would like the PS4 performance, but I hate the dual shock 4. I had a good time with Bloodborne, but I curse the controller every time I have to play something with it.

I would be much happier at 900p with a more solid frame rate.

Still not sure what I'm going to do.

Me too, after Bloodborne I'm really at a point where I caan't stand the controller... I know it's all personal preference but my fingers constantly slip off the joysticks. Which is to bad because my initial thoughts after playing with the ds4 for a bit was "now I don't have to let the control determine which console I play on". The battery life is annoying too combined with the fact that I can't just swap the battery when it dies.

Fighting father G in Bloodborne was a bit of a nightmare. I kept having to use my left thumb to prop my right thumb on the joystick, Granted my hands were pretty sweaty.

I have no problems with the XB1s bumpers... That controller to me is absolute perfection.

 

[shadowsdarknes]

The Xbox 3 version almost seems like it should be locked at 30.

Variable frame rates often (not always) drive me crazy.

 

[RyudBoy]

Really should've went with 900p on XB1.

Anyway, I'm glad I didn't bite (almost did). I might when it goes on sale, and hopefully by then they'll patch in a fix.

 

[Derpyduck]

Me too, after Bloodborne I'm really at a point where I caan't stand the controller... I know it's all personal preference but my fingers constantly slip off the joysticks. Which is to bad because my initial thoughts after playing with the ds4 for a bit was "now I don't have to let the control determine which console I play on". The battery life is annoying too combined with the fact that I can't just swap the battery when it dies.

Fighting father G in Bloodborne was a bit of a nightmare. I kept having to use my left thumb to prop my right thumb on the joystick, Granted my hands were pretty sweaty.

I have no problems with the XB1s bumpers... That controller to me is absolute perfection.

These will fix your issues with the DS4 analog sticks. They add grip and also protect the sticks from falling apart as they have a tendency to do.

 

[DarthWalden]

These will fix your issues with the DS4 analog sticks. They add grip and also protect the sticks from falling apart as they have a tendency to do.

Thanks, I was thinking of just replacing my sticks with xb1 sticks but this seems easier.

 

[Protome]

Sorry, I need to disagree with you. On PS2 era I was used to read console magazines and PC magazines a lot, since internet was not really a thing (I mean, fastest connection was ISDN), and basically those magazines were the only way to have info/news on videogames. And I NEVER so the term "the game runs on solid 60 fps".

They can say the game was fluid, things like that, but no one used 60 fps term, even because I think measure FPS on PS2, XBox, Dreamcast or whatever was not really a thing.

You're arguing semantics here. So what if the term changed? Using another term for the same thing doesn't mean that nobody gave a damn about 60FPS before, it just means the praised it under a different name and over the years the terminology got better.