AF problems solved for PS4?
Do you guys think From will target 60 fps for Dark Souls 3 ( Ps4 and One of course) ?
There was a 60fps mod for Dark Souls 1 for PC, being only the second Souls game in the series.Hopefully they'll get those fixed, only issue I've had so far is really long wait times in Chalice summoning..
No one posted impressions when they played the PC version after PS3/XB360? I personally didn't "feel" much difference in the FPS other than weapons broke faster, and I ran it 2560x1440 on PC so it looked LOT cleaner, but preferred the experience on PS3 because I encountered one too many cheater invading me on PC, of course I played it on PS3 first so that might be the cause too.
I would just refer to the english word "locked." When a door is locked, it doesnt allow anything to cross its threshhold. 60 is 60 is 60 is 60.
Personally, if it had the occasional (1 time every 2 minutes) short CPU related blip to 59 fps, I would sy it is pretty close to locked. But entire gameplay sections being in the 50s is not IMO.
Sure if It's a last gen game
Not at all. In fact it's very relevant concidering they are the same type of game from the same developer. Even more so if someone wants to call one version horrible for it.
DMC remaster says hello
When you bust through the door, would you still qualify it as locked?to use your door example. You can still smash through a locked door with enough force unless you re enforce the door (in this example lots of unused resources (gpu time, cpu time, memory).
to use your door example. You can still smash through a locked door with enough force unless you re enforce the door (in this example lots of unused resources (gpu time, cpu time, memory).
First thing I checked in the screenshot tool was AF and it seems to be identical on both systems, both using some amount of AF. In fact the graphics look identical on both systems.
The only difference I can tell is the framerate, which is rather obvious.
I'd put a bet on it that they won't. BB wasn't and DS3 might even have better graphics on PS4 than BB does. I expect a 30 FPS target again on consoles.
Are you joking or serious?
Wouldn't go as far as pathetic, but it sure falls under derailing.Isn't it a bit pathetic to bring Bloodborne into this thread and making wishful predictions on overreactions?
The lowest frame drop everyone keeps quoting also didn't happen during the boss fight. It happened on victory when the character aquired the boss's souls. During the boss fight, the frame rates for both consoles were much closer.
AF problems solved for PS4?
No, it is not that complicated.
I really don't know where the issue comes from to be honest (since you can use AF) but I think Sony knows about the "problem" and maybe they reacted to show devs how to "fix it" or to clarify if it is some misunderstanding about the process.
Whilst true, drops from 30fps to 20fps are going to be just as noticeable as drops from 60fps to 34fps. Obviously you'll still have better input response with the latter, which is a big advantage, but in terms of the aesthetic experience, you're going to feel a massive difference with the drop all the same.
Honestly, I think they should have just dropped the Xbox One version to 900p. Not sure why they decided to keep it 1080p.
Damn and I get the game tomorrow (Xbone). I appreciate the 1080p framerate but 36 fps during a boss fight? Pity.
The lowest it dropped (36FPS) was during cutscene, boss fight itself was almost locked 60FPS. Then it dropped to 30s again when achievement poped after the fight.
It might be just a streaming issue I think coupled with heavy effects during cutscenes.
People are exaggerating the drops, from gameplay parts Xbox version drops to 40s, PS4 drops to 50s. Not a big deal.
I do wish developers would let you lower the resolution from the console settings rather than downscaling.How can they release these console games with frame drops that bad? I can move my seat back a few feet to neglect 900/720p, but my eyes will always see shitty frame rates. I Want to say it's the weak consoles, but there are games out there that do run a solid 60(I think). From now on I'm only paying the developers by how many fps their game has.
Not at all. In fact it's very relevant concidering they are the same type of game from the same developer. Even more so if someone wants to call one version horrible for it.
Whilst true, drops from 30fps to 20fps are going to be just as noticeable as drops from 60fps to 34fps. Obviously you'll still have better input response with the latter, which is a big advantage, but in terms of the aesthetic experience, you're going to feel a massive difference with the drop all the same.
Honestly, I think they should have just dropped the Xbox One version to 900p. Not sure why they decided to keep it 1080p.
Technically that 36 fps drop doesn't occur during the boss fight but after.
https://youtu.be/QMPJ_rSUR0I?t=287
If you don't have a PS4 it's still a good version.
Not at all. In fact it's very relevant concidering they are the same type of game from the same developer. Even more so if someone wants to call one version horrible for it.
Read the article and thought that doesn't sound too bad, then watched the video.
Don't get the X1 version
PS4 clearly the better version.Both formats target 60fps and engage v-sync at all times, but Microsoft's platform suffers the greater drops between the two in each scene of our frame-rate analysis. The Forest of Fallen Giants area is a good example, where a barrage of enemies causes a read-out of between 40-50fps on Xbox One, while PS4 operates within the 50-60fps range. Even while uncontested beneath the giant, arching trees of Things Betwixt, a regular margin of 10fps exists between the two - PS4 operating at a near perfect 60fps, while Xbox stutters along at 50fps.
Unfortunately this has the knock-on effect of making combat sluggish on Xbox One. In one example, an encounter with The Last Giant boss gives us our lowest drop, a record tumble to 36fps cued by a batch of floating souls. The PS4 goes entirely unruffled by the effect here, and it's fair to say the smoother controller response makes it easier to tackle a lingering knight after this boss battle's finished. Sony's machine does not produce a perfect 60fps of course, but it is a consistently better performer - and in a game that demands pinpoint timing for rolls and ripostes, the smoother frame-rate can make a difference.
YepRead the article and thought that doesn't sound too bad, then watched the video.
Don't get the X1 version
Yeah, will do the same.Seems like a good port. I'll probab pick it up after Bloodborne
One version? How is bloodborne a different version of Dark Souls 2 now?
Whatever, you're arguing against a nice strawman here anyway. There's been no lack of criticism of Bloodborne's technical failings, even in its OT.
Maybe, just maybe people prefer the game for other reasons but I dunno.
Going to love to see people who praise bloodborne harp on the frame dips That don't go below it's highest framerate.
I wonder why they didn't go 900p on XB1.
Well thank god you brought it up in the first place. It would truly be completely absurd for someone to have different technical expectations for two games that look entirely different made on different game engines with different physics, lighting, textures, and such. Especially when one so obviously outshines the other in terms of graphical fidelity.if that's the case then there is nothing to get upset about. I just said "if" Someone harps on the framerate Here but not for bloodborne. That's the context for the comment.
That has nothing to do with not liking either game. I love both.
Well thank god you brought it up in the first place. It would truly be completely absurd for someone to have different technical expectations for two games that look entirely different made on different game engines with different physics, lighting, textures, and such. Especially when one so obviously outshines the other in terms of graphical fidelity.
Thank you, pixlexic, for preemptively fighting the good fight.
I've put in an inquiry to DF to see if the can retest with a profile that already has the achievement to determine if that was the cause of the slowdown. The graphical effect going on at the time didn't look like it should have had that severe of a drop compared to what the rest of the test showed gameplay in the 40's-50's.
Makes me question how the achievement system is set up on XOne...
If Bloodborne was 30 I don't see them aiming for a high frame rate over high visual density and fidelity.Yeah there are few case of good implementation but i don't like it at all
Do you guys think From will target 60 fps for Dark Souls 3 ( Ps4 and One of course) ?
As if anyone was going to do that anyway.
I wish they could add a graphics option that would bump it down to 900p and give players 10 to 15 fps back. In Dark Souls smooth gameplay is a must I think. Having graphics options like that is really helpful on PCs.
I heard the 60fps durability glitch is still on the PC version. Does the consoles have it too? Anyone who plays on newgen and played on oldgen that can confirm?
I'm with you. Make every game a solid 60fps, and let me guess the resolution. Smooth gameplay will always be better than a checkmark next to 1080p. Of course that's my opinion.At this point, I would be content if third party multiplatform games on the Xbox went for 900p instead of 1080p if it avoids a frame rate disparity.
As if anyone was going to do that anyway.
At this point, I would be content if third party multiplatform games on the Xbox went for 900p instead of 1080p if it avoids a frame rate disparity.