Optimiazations like this are exactly what are being worked on in the final months of development. Come on haha. People gotta stop being such drama queens and realize this is prerelease software. Nothing wrong with a thread discussing it but the amount of shit posts acting like this is the final frame rate/resolution and that nothing will ever change are just ridiculous and silly.Right, because with the game going gold in a few months things will dramatically change
This, if they cut splitscreen I want 1080p 60fpsThey better be able to deliver if they cut split screen for it.
I dont know, I just dont think theres value in an outfit like DF which already has a piss poor reputation to rush for clicks rather than to consider what public service such analysis has.I was taught at a early age to put your best foot forward. What they showed at E3 was not impressive from a graphics or technical standpoint. They choose to show it in that state criticism is absolutely fair. If they get it much better by launch Praise would be equally as fair.
It's just funny bringing up Uncharted 4 out of all games. A game that targeted 60fps initially, which has now been reduced to 30. And that's fine, but there wasn't much of an outcry when that was announced either. On the other hand, we have a Digital Foundry article nitpicking an alpha build of Halo 5 with people all up in arms because it has 'dynamic resolution' or whatever.
So coming into this thread and claiming ND are tech gods is disingenuous. Compromises are made in every game.
How does that proverb relate to game development at all?I was taught at a early age to put your best foot forward. What they showed at E3 was not impressive from a graphics or technical standpoint. They choose to show it in that state criticism is absolutely fair. If they get it much better by launch Praise would be equally as fair.
This, if they cut splitscreen I want 1080p 60fps
Except Uncharted 4 looking like the PSX demo @60 would have been rather impressive, whereas Halo 5 looking like it does now @60 is just meeting basic expectations.
Interesting, it looks like they may be going for the Wolfenstein-style dynamic resolution to lock down the framerate?
I'm OK with that.
Have you played the Star Wars Battlefront Alpha on PC these past few days? I personally have not, but a friend who has it said it has terrible pop-in and it gets even worse when flying. Neither games are released, but I assume SWB will be at least as polished as BF4 was on launch day, so yes, a lot of progress can be made in the crunch period.Yeah, no, this is total BS. Please remind me the last time a game got a significant upgrade in Res/FPS/graphics just a few months before release. At this point the assets are essentially finalized and the team is busy taking care of bugs, optimization is a BS term and usually means cutting something to up the performance.
Jesus.Except Uncharted 4 looking like the PSX demo @60 would have been rather impressive, whereas Halo 5 looking like it does now @60 is just meeting basic expectations.
One day I should complete my thesis on the average post and console ownership history in negative Gaf threads. This should be cross referenced with a graph showing the (apparent) relative importance of feature, tech or personnel being discussed and divided by the difference in conversation momentum versus "positive" threads
Except Uncharted 4 looking like the PSX demo @60 would have been rather impressive, whereas Halo 5 looking like it does now @60 is just meeting basic expectations.
Good one, haha.When ND showed UC4 at PSX, a year-ish before launch, it was running at 30, when it was supposed to be a 60FPS game (at the time).
When Halo 5 showed its beta a year before launch, it was AT LEAST running 60 at the time.
Looked fine too.
Frank and Josh has stated multiple times on several different forums, optimization is the last thing they do and resolution is never final till way later.
But GAF will be GAF and this thread will continue on for another 20+ pages thinking the res/FR is final.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with concerns and discussing this stuff. It's the rampant, blatant drive-by shit posting that never seems to stop in Halo threads.
some people always criticize analysis of non-final builds, but really, how many games that were analyzed 3~6m pre-launch have significantly improved by launch?
if they want to hit that sweet 60fps they should try cutting some SFX, not resolution.
Yeah, no, this is total BS. Please remind me the last time a game got a significant upgrade in Res/FPS/graphics just a few months before release. At this point the assets are essentially finalized and the team is busy taking care of bugs, optimization is a BS term and usually means cutting something to up the performance.
How does that proverb relate to game development at all?
Good one, haha.
So early development should produce better results than final code?Putting your best foot forward relates to basically Everything. If you can't understand that I don't know what to tell you.
... I assume SWB will be at least as polished as BF4 was on launch day...
Destiny XB1 went from 900p to 1080p between the public beta and the game launch.
Yeah, no, this is total BS. Please remind me the last time a game got a significant upgrade in Res/FPS/graphics just a few months before release. At this point the assets are essentially finalized and the team is busy taking care of bugs, optimization is a BS term and usually means cutting something to up the performance.
Because of better tools...
Because of better tools...
We've seen games get patched to 1080p, you're really doubting that no type of work is done in that regard once it's shown to the public a few months beforehand?
So early development should produce better results than final code?
It's just that the framerate isn't locked down either...yet.
So early development should produce better results than final code?
It was 3 months or so and the point was to prove that a lot could be optimized in the last few months of optimization.I'm a 60fps or bust kinda guy but in the end, I don't think it was worth it, not when it comes with so many drawbacks. I hope the game is at least a solid 60 when it releases.
9 months before release
not three months
So, again, how does that proverb fit the situation? When you get lied to with bullshit E3 "gameplay" that turns out to be better looking than final release, people complain of downgrade. When 343i shows what the game really looks like without any photoshopping visuals and adjusting performance, people complain that they didn't put their best foot forward. Okay, then.NO but they choose to show that so criticism of what was shown is fair. As I said in my earlier post The game could launch much better. People's reaction Will be According to how the game releases.
The fact that people even think this is ok actually gets me mad.....They should go with 1080p 30fps for the campaign and 60fps variable res for MP. Everybody wins.
They should go with 1080p 30fps for the campaign and 60fps variable res for MP. Everybody wins.
I was taught at a early age to put your best foot forward. What they showed at E3 was not impressive from a graphics or technical standpoint. They choose to show it in that state criticism is absolutely fair. If they get it much better by launch Praise would be equally as fair.
The fact that people even think this is ok actually gets me mad.....
60fps or bust. Consistency over everything. It's almost like people don't understand the difference between 60fps and 30fps and how jarring that difference would be in the same game switching between two different modes. As I said way back on page two: thank god no one at 343 is listening to this garbage idea and is instead going for 60fps all around. Listen to the people who will play this game long after its release, not the new flavor of the month gamers.
While I prefer 60fps over 30fps every time I don't mind 30fps at all. I play plenty of 30fps games and never complain. What I hate is a lack of consistency. If a game switches between 30 and 60fps depending on the mode I'm in that's a jarring switch and I will complain about that. As I said in my post: consistency over everything.You must get mad a lot. I recommend playing on a high end gaming PC only if you have this disorder. Plenty of console games do 30 fps and the vast majority of people that buy them give zero fucks about framerate.
The fact that people even think this is ok actually gets me mad.....
60fps or bust. Consistency over everything. It's almost like people don't understand the difference between 60fps and 30fps and how jarring that difference would be in the same game switching between two different modes. As I said way back on page two: thank god no one at 343 is listening to this garbage idea and is instead going for 60fps all around. Listen to the people who will play this game long after its release, not the new flavor of the month gamers.
You will be hearing that a lot this generation, whether it's true or not we'll never know.Did i read that right? Some people really believe that the Engine was build from the ground up? Cmon...
That's cool and all but that's not how development works unless you want to be Ubisoft facing game after game of downgrade speculation
We'll be at comic con, rtx and gamescom with different focus and scale at each. Comic con should be fun this year and I got my beach body back just in time. 25 pounds in two weeks!
I'm expecting a forge reveal of sorts at rtx. Isn't that where reach and 4 were first shown?
While I prefer 60fps over 30fps every time I don't mind 30fps at all. I play plenty of 30fps games and never complain. What I hate is a lack of consistency. If a game switches between 30 and 60fps depending on the mode I'm in that's a jarring switch and I will complain about that. As I said in my post: consistency over everything.