Printable View
http://forum.teamxbox.com/showthread.php?t=619091
Perfect example of why Pubs and Devs don't ensure working V-Sync and AA in todays "next gen Console" games. (just one of many examples) Because gamers don't fucking care enough to boycott shitty Gaming efforts.
:?
I feel like smashing the wall after reading that thread. :mad:
Reading enough of this kind of treads has kinda desentisized me to this kind of stuff...
I can even laugh at it now.
"And before you guys say you don't notice it or don't care or it don't bug you see my sig. I am the 360 screen tearing crusader and proud of it. There is no excuse this generation for this problem other than pure laziness or incompetence in the developers. Why MS lets them publish games with vsync off and tearing is beyond me. All 360 games should have AA ,antialiasing,vsync on and minimum 30fps steady or they should be rejected till they meet those minimum specs."
This is gamer whining at its best. I'm glad I'm smarter than that.
Yikes, there's screen tearing in 360 games, wow now those are some lazy developers.
I haven't ran into games with those issues, but I do boycott bad developers, and I'm very carefull before buying a game developed/published by a company without atleast a very good track record(and will only pre-order from companies with vertually spotless records).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darklordrobert
Excuse you... are you saying the gamer who shells out his money for the P3 or 360 shouldn't expect working AA & V-Sync in their "next gen" games? :|
No, I do want my "next gen" game to look and perform as best as possible of course.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
But if an otherwise good game suffers from screen tearing or anything else I wouldn't let it bother me.
Calling yourself a screen tearing crusader seems a bit over the top for me.
I'm always more concerned about the gameplay then anything else in a game, if these things really affect gameplay I to would complain.
People like you are keeping the Gaming Standards LOW.Quote:
Originally Posted by Darklordrobert
Thanks a lot for not caring about standards.... good job. :|
Do you even understand the irony of your two statements?
"next gen" and Tearing/Jaggies don't mix.
If it wasn't for people like you, we'd have 100% V-sync and AA in todays Console games. thks, again
Depends on what trade-offs they are willing to accept. The PS3 and XBox 360 were powerhouses when they came out, but are fairly low-end by today's standards. If the detail needed for a game screen means you can't hold at least 60 FPS at all times, you either drop down to 30 FPS or accept tearing. There's simply no way around that (50 and 25 for PAL TVs). Many players would rather have 58 FPS and tearing than 30 FPS and vsync.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
If you want 60 FPS (or better) all the time, you need to sacrifice something... AA being one of the more commonly sacrificed time-consumers. Maybe you need to remove certain lighting effects, or limit the draw distance, or limit the number of objects in frame. The issue is that many of these games today are developed around a modern HIGH-END PC (to drive the PC market forward) where they don't need to make those trade-offs. Then when the game gets ported to the 360 or PS3, they have to deal with the consequences of a less powerful system.
The current generation of consoles aren't equipped to run at HD resolutions without a hitch, most games run at 30FPS or less.They pushed this "HD" craze forward, and they themselves can barely keep up.Only PC can pump out good HD.You will have to wait for the next generation of consoles to get 60 FPS, AA, and VSync.
Haha, you expect high resolution 60fps without screen tearing in the next generation of consoles? No, they'd still rather just sacrifice that in favor of pumping out more shiny vaseline effects, like they always do. And you still won't have any options to change it.
Conjecture and nothing more. Lack of V-Sync is UNNACCEPTABLE... there is no amount of reasoning to not have it. If a game can't be designed/ported to the P3&360 with adequate frame rates and V-Sync enabled, then the game simply needs to be cancelled.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
Gorgeous engine with no V-Sync = FUGLY:!:
There are ZERO excuses and I'm SICK of seeing people make them for Sony and Microsoft. They either need to invest in figuring out how to enable Triple Buffering for titles that struggle for frames and V-Sync simultaneously... that or don't realse the goddamn game! It's real simple.
That's all just YOUR opinion. I myself would rather have 58 FPS and tearing than 30 FPS, especially on a FPS. Those 28 extra FPS can mean the difference between fragging and being fragged.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
You can't cancel a popular game conversion just because you can't make it 60 FPS and look the same as a modern high-end PC - you'd be out of business in a month. You have to make the best conversion possible with what you have. It's been that way since the 2600.
That's just ridiculous. You're like, personally attacking this guy. I agree with both of you to an extent, yeah there should be more quality control, I'm seeing more bugs in games lately myself, but I can look past alot if the game is good as long as it isn't a critical flaw, like a game save glitch or something that gets you stuck.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
Where would we be if nintendo was like "hey, zelda has slowdown, double dragon has flicker, we can't release those." You saying people like us is keeping the standards low is like me saying people like you is why i don't have the games that i want on live arcade.
See, I would rather them spend less money on AA and high intensity lighting and more money throwing old games on the marketplace, learning how to emulate saturn, or making fresh new retro games like scott pilgrim or mega man 9/10. Yeah sometimes when I'm playing a game and the framerate dips I get annoyed, but do I want them to hold the game back and risk it being unreleased for the sake of a few fps? Hell no. Besides, there's not much they can't fix later with an update patch these days.
Seriously? I thought Darklordrobert's explanation was absolutely satisfactory. Who are you to talk down to him and lay the quality of games blame on him?Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
I agree that a lack Vsync, AA and triple buffering sucks, but it basically boils down to this.Companies can make weaker games and have them run at 60 FPS, AA, etc, or they can make it be "pretty"(and I use that term loosely),and have it run like crap.You cant expect the PS3/360 to pump out the graphics it does now at with all those features, because it can barely do games at 720P.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
Oh I can't... :daze:Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
Is it just me or am I the ONLY guy in the world that has noticed that Sony and Microsoft offered two next gen systems that "were supposed to be capable" of PC quality graphics for
1. Less hassle
2. Cheaper in the longrun
3. "same" quality as top notch PC gaming
but have instead only offered a fraction of what they said they could offer?
So basically... I get it now I think. Everyone who was "gun ho" about the P3 and 360 stood behind those companies back then, and now that the proof is in the pudding (most Console games are being butchered), people have decided to simply sweep the issue under the rug by making excuse after excuse for these two companies.
They promised Next Gen gaming, guys... WHERE THE HELL is it:?: :!:
I'd rather your opinion didn't count because if that were the case, we'd have V-Sync and AA in 100% of todays Console games. Sadly, opinions like yours are what matters to M. and S. because if they actually had to answer to gamers who had real standards, they'd have to either come with it (ensure high quality across the board) OR go the fuck out of business. Instead, clowns who don't care about important Technical Processing have more influence in the creation of games than those who do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
It's thanks to individuals like yourself for todays Mediocrity.
cheers :|
It was never promised.When dealing with consoles they will never be on the same quality as a PC.PC users have a higher standard, consoles marketed towards the masses.Most people don't want to spend the extra money on a gaming grade PC, so they get a console, it's not the same, but it's similar.You can't expect the same experience on a cheaper product.
OldSchool shut it you fool how hard is it to accept somebodies opinion if you don't agree with it? I think its people like you OldSchool that pulls gaming down. Most gamers whine so much over stuff that doesn't matter, how could you possibly expect them to care what gamers think when so many gamers are just whiney little brats who natter endlessly over something that means nothing rather than talking about how fun a game is and how it could be improved constructively.
Someone who gets it! +1Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
The PS3 and Xbox 360 weren't promised to be the equivalent of a PC, it's an all together different product. Consoles have always catered to a very different market than PCs, it's crazy that you refuse to acknowledge that.
I don't understand why they can't give the consumer the option of choosing the graphics/performance ratio though. Especially when online multiplayer games are becoming increasingly prevalent on consoles.
Take Halo Reach for example, since it's a sequel to 2007's Halo, there is an expectation that the graphics should be better, in spite of running on the same hardware. So they've pumped up the visual output, at the cost of making the game run worse than Halo 3. What's the harm in letting the player make the decision?
Movies are at 24 and 29.9 fps. I'm fine with 30 fps games, who needs 60fps except for people who think they need it.
I'm a pc gamer at heart(actually my heart is branded sega ;) ) because I like the control of 3d games you have on pc. I run at full resolution 1920x1200 and always turn on v-sync. I rarely use AA unless the game runs superfast. I don't know where I was going with this..
The difference shouldn't be that big if triple buffering is used. (it should be almost 58 FPS, even if you're only using a 60 Hz refresh, you only have to drop to integer divisions of the refresh rate with double buffering, triple buffering avoid that... and if a higher refresh rate was used -like 120 Hz sets- you have even more flexibility assuming the console/computer can detect that) And I thought triple buffering was pretty standard last generation... I don't seem to remember even seeing it as an option for any PC games much after 2000. (presumably used by default, a lot of late 90s games had it as an option -but they also had texture filtering, perspective correction, and z-buffering optional -and often support for software renderers)Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
However, this is just one more thin that would be solved by flexible user defined detail settings. :p (with defaults for "normal" people, of course) That would also mean you'd get a performance boost when running in 720p or 480p rather than 1080p. (480i shouldn't be different from 480p though)
But that would just be one among many trade-offs possible (AA, v-sync, texture detail, model detail, filtering, reflections, particle effects, etc, etc), but more significant for those using 720p sets as there would be no advantage of 1080p, or ED/SDTV users dropping to 480. (what would be really nice is to actually support variable monitor resolutions and aspect ratios like PC games, not just for the odd PC monitor user, but also to allow use of the true native resolution of LCD and Plasma sets, especially the common 1360x768)
There's screen tearing in my beloved Dead or Alive 4?!?!?!?
...
And yet, somehow, life goes on.
I guess I just don't have as high standards as others. For games anymore, all I ask is progressive scan and widescreen. And 99% of the time that's what I get :)
(that 1% being Madworld for the Wii)
Saints Row 2 offered Vsync, true it had a terrible engine but at least the option was there. DR2 for PS3 has VSync disabled altogether, but you know what, getting games to a 'publishable' state is hard enough already, those technical quibbles are second fiddle compared to the challenge of releasing the game in the first place.
Darksiders retail has tearing, but a patch fixed that. Which is curious since the game looked hardly better than a 6th gen title. And guess what? It definitely underperformed due to its outdated visuals! Graphical flair has always been necessary to sell games, all this forum bickering is just decadent righteousness.
I don't think gamers are "dumb." I think most of them are able to make the distinction between minor quibbles and genuine game-breaking bugs.
Oldschool, you're being completely ridiculous. I'm actually a little embarrassed for you.
I'm going to call bullshit on you. I don't have time tonight, but in the coming days... I will dig up 'plenty' of cases where Sony and Microsoft did just that.Quote:
Originally Posted by kokujin
You guys continuing to make excuses only makes me hotter.
What's hard for me to accept is the fact that I have to endure mediocrity in gaming specifically because of the mindset of individuals like you.Quote:
Originally Posted by doomguy
thks, asshole
No one said they were supposed to be "on par with a PC"... Sony and Microsoft did however promise a similar gaming experience for LESS money, LESS hassle, and more reliability.Quote:
Originally Posted by InternalPrimate
Giving the customer a current generation game engine with all the trinkets MINUS CORE Processes that have been a part of PC gaming for over a decade is NOT what they promised:!:
You wanna know why... because the Devs and Pubs don't think we're smart enough to handle something like that on our own. They also don't want us turning graphical processes on that might hinder Framerates because 'in their retarded minds', they think the customer is going to blame them for the poor frame rates when that option in question is turned on by the user.Quote:
Originally Posted by GeckoYamori
ding ding ^ nail meet headQuote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Higher Refresh rates combined with Triple Buffering and the excuses for mediocrity would come to a close.
Interesting Mr. Kitty... lol... in my thread about higher resolutions causing the Consoles to run hotter, you stuck to your guns along with everyone else that running higher resolutions wouldn't warrant more heat, but here in this post you feel that running in resolutions lower than 1080P would net a "performance boost". You can't have it both ways... choose. ;)
That is true... you don't. If every gamer thought like this, we'd be stuck with SNES graphics in 2010.Quote:
Originally Posted by Waterfaller
Darksiders on the P3 does not have Tearing. It also doesn't have any AA, but I'd much rather have V-Sync over AA.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pulstar
Bullshit excuses! Just be honest with yourself, pal: you're ok with mediocrity. :cool:
Again, I'll reiterate my point: because of the mass majority being content with mediocre efforts in Gaming, my choices are somewhat dictated to me in the kind of quality I'll see in todays Console games. It's my choice to not support games with Tearing just as it's y'alls choice to support games with Tearing.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrMatthews
I simply wish more gamers had higher standards, because if that were the case: we'd have a much higher quantity of higher quality games available.
Come in here and call me an Elitest all you want. I've said my piece, and now I feel better for having called out all of the half ass gamers. :o
You know what's real dumb? People that pay $300 for a PS3, hook it up to a SDTV, and bitch about AA and Vsync not being turned on.
(I laughed) You know what's even dumber than that? The fact that the games don't look any different in resolutions greater than 480i. Actually that's not funny... that's just plain sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by gamevet
;)
(try again, partner - thks for playing though)
Triple buffering is just frame dropping. You lose the extra frame if the game runs less than 60 FPS. Some people find that preferable to tearing, but tearing is the ONLY way to get that extra frame at least somewhat viewed at under 60 Hz. Triple buffering gives you a jump from one frame to a later frame with the intervening frame(s) gone completely. That's of no help in a fast FPS.
It's not excuses - it's the way video works. Even PCs still do it in quite a few instances. Many PC gamers put up with tearing to play their FPS at 113 FPS rather than turn on vsync and run at 75 FPS. A lot of widescreen LCD monitors limit the highest resolutions to 60 Hz, so many people turn off the vsync so they can run the game at 150 FPS instead of 60 FPS.
Complaints about tearing and lack of AA is extreme arrogance - might as well bitch about car companies releasing cars that can't do 180 MPH and call people stupid for buying cheap economy cars.
:roll:
Wipeout HD is 1080p at 60fps. It's not Sony's fault that they get hand me down 360 ports.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
We've had this discussion before. Playing a PS3 on a SDTV is about as dumb as buying a Blu-Ray player and using composite cables to hook it up. I've played PS3 games in 480i, just to see how bad it was, and it looked like complete ass. It's bad enough when the colors are all flat, but the lack of a detailed reflective surface is just horrible. The lack of Vsync and AA is the least of your problems, when playing in 480i.
Why wouldn't tripple buffering open up fully variable framerates to allow almost as fast as the render speed, unlike double buffering which would only practically allow an integer division of the refresh rate?Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
You'd get a bit of stutter sure, just like 30 FPS progressive DVD players vs 60 FPS interlaced 3:2 pulldown, yet another case where user selactable options are preferable.
If a game can't run maxed out at the highest resolution, there's no reason more options shouldn't be available for the user to choose their own preference. (for maxed out performance at high res, downscaling and interpolating/antialiasing for 720/480p/i would be fine other than the GPU running just as hot ;))
Nope, it's the exact same thing I must have said a dozen times in that thread: the performance boost would be from changing priorities in rendering to actually RENDER at lower res and/or detail which games DON'T offer on most consoles.Quote:
Originally Posted by OldSchool
Heat of the GPU simply relates to hpw heavily it's working and whether it has dynamic power management (I imagine most modern consoles and all video cards have variable internal clock rates but I'm not positive), so in that sense (regardless of resolution) you could dial detail way back in favor of maxed out framerates and a cooler running machine.
But again, they don't do that, only PCs do, consoles are implemented in a stupid limited manner for the most part that omits such software selectable options. (almost certainly somethign developers leave out due to a lack of need, though the flexibility of actual resolutions -even with scaling- is limited by the OS settings)
I've even had inconsistent results getting some 360s to run in 480p and others in 480i (there doesn't seem to be any 480p vs i option only the one 480 setting and some seem to ouput only 480p via component and others output 480i, very odd and not something the Wii or original Xbox had a problem with -a very useful feature if you occassionally move your consoles around from monitor/tv to other monitor/tvs -I often do that with friends over, especially if they bring their PS3 or 360, usually playing via an SDTV as our only HDTV is in my dad's bedroom an our Sany looks pretty nice in 480i component, especially with compressed 4:3 mode, but it would be far better if games were flexible enough to customize detail settings like with a PC)
One of those friends was playing his 360 exclusively via composite on a ~1990 30" Trinitron up until about a year ago :p though now it's a 30" new trinitron, much nicer (component+anamorphic support) but still an SDTV. (on clearance iirc)
Again, the new consoles would look a lot better with actual flexible settings for all users, not just for low-end users. (games that get framey merit droping detail regardless of the max res of a TV or such, just like with PCs: just because you can max out a lot of games at the native resolution doesn't mean there aren't others where it's preferable to drop detail a bit in favor of a higher framerate -more than just resolution of course, but res is the only limiting factor of a monitor... albeit with LCDs it's not as flexible as multi-sync CRTs with variable native resolutions vs scaling)
And what's hilarious is the polar opposite of that situation where people (especially rather tech clueless families or older/retired people) is that they DO get HD sets (cheap or high-end) and only use them for SD content, sometimes via composite, and often via RF, especially those who opt for the standard low-end cable/satellite decoder boxes (people who actually use broadcast would benefit greatly from an HD set ironically ;)) and do the same with DVDs etc. And more than that they watch almost exclusively 4:3 content stretched to 16:9. :rofl: (then there's deinterlacing artifacts, etc, etc)
That came up in that other thread to. :lol:
I don't have a huge network of friends or such, but I personally know of a surprising number of cases where this is true and I think we can all agree that 480i via component on an SDTV looks much better than 480i via composite (or RF :lol: ) on an HDTV.
And in all of those cases they don't have any game consoles at all (in one case it's a friend who's big on PC gaming and the DC was actually their only family game console ever) while many gamer friends are using SDTVs still with others using HD sets.
And then there's the contrast and viewing angle advantages of a CRT over older/cheaper LCDs. (a broader issue though)
I think people should just stop buying shitty FPS games, cuz that seems to be the genre with the most screen tearing from what I've seen. I never buy a game unless I know it's high quality and made by people who actually give a shit. That's why I stick to staple franchises like Resident Evil, Metal Gear, Soul Calibur, etc. I haven't noticed screen tearing in those games, because they weren't half-assed like all those FPSs like Call of Juarez or Dark Sector or any of that crap.
Bottom line, don't just blow your money on every game that comes out just because you saw it in an advertisement. That'll encourage people to work harder.
To Oldschool: Um, and what's wrong with SNES graphics? Lol you know what, in most cases the art style in SNES games were better then anything found in the newer consoles(and alot of the graphics looked cleaner as well).
However I have to agree about M$ promising a PC quality xp, exc, exc(everything you listed in that statement was basically word for word what M$ was promoting). The 360 in every way, shape, and form is a repackaged PC, and was advertised as such, so I would wish people would stop pulling the, but It's a console, therefore it can't live up to PC standards card(It's a repackages PC, and they promised all those things).
Although I can't recall Sony claiming the PS3 was to be as good as a gaming quality PC or that it would offer a PC xp, however with that being said, there are tons of other things Sony has promised, yet went back on their word(being able to install an alt OS, BC, evidently SD support, exc exc, and somewhere down the list of broken promises, they promised the best graphics on the market, which clearly Isn't true either, not like graphics matter, but still).
To Why-Disciple: I couldn't agree with you more.
:lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoltor
Let's not go even further off topic. :p
Anyway, I was thinking some more and honestly you could equally argue that the Wii should support HD resolutions commonly with user defined options.
Honestly even last generation the emphasis on SD support was over the top for contemporary standards but it was the overwhealming norm and thus developers catered to it (albeit there was common 480p support on some of the systems and you at least had 480i becoming the norm above 240p the previous generation of consoles). Developers seem to mainly add such options only when forced, thus it's commonplace on PCs due to the nonstandard hardware with vastly variable performance, but it's useful for far more than that. (ie take any fixed system, treat it as a console and you've got tons of flexibility for software detail settings over contemporary consoles -including playing on an HDTV in 1360x768 native even if with VGA -HDMI is dumb sometimes)
Regardless of what the frame rate is (60, 50, 30, whatever), it's still one single frame each 1/x time period. Say it's 60 Hz progressive. That means the console displays 60 distinct frames each second. If you go with triple buffering, all you are doing is ignoring those frames generated that do not fall on a vblank period. Say a game runs at 180 FPS - on a 60 Hz TV with vsync and triple buffering, you are showing one frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing the fourth frame, skipping the next two frames, then showing seventh frame, and so on. They are never seen in any form at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by kool kitty89
Now if you don't use vsync and simply flip the buffer, the TV has time to show part of the first frame, then part of the second frame, then part of the third frame, all in the first frame displayed on the TV. So you get tearing at each place a new buffer appears, but you at least get to see some of those frames instead of all of one and nothing of the other two. Depending on how fast the game is, this might be advantageous to the gamer... in FPS games, it generally tends to be. If the game only runs at 30 Hz internally, clearly it's not an advantage. It all depends on the game and the person playing. Something like an RPG or The Sims should be vsync'd... something like Call of Duty probably shouldn't. Someone who complains about AA and tearing in a game like CoD is probably having his ass handed to him by all the other players. If you're really into a game like that, you're willing to take ANY advantage you can; there's literally NO TIME to sit around and discuss the merits of AA versus no AA.
Wow.. what a thread :o
What a can of worms that has been opened :daze:Quote:
Originally Posted by tomaitheous
And SNES graphics are awesome :D
Oh, you mean if the framerate is HIGHER than the refresh rate. OK, triple buffering doesn't help that... it would help if you had say a game jumping between 40-60 FPS on a 60 Hz display (maybe not catching every single frame, but probably pretty close) vs a double buffered display where you'd have to drop to an integer division of 60 Hz. (ie 30, 20, 15, 12, etc) For PAL that's even worse as you have many fewer integer steps with 50 than 60.Quote:
Originally Posted by Chilly Willy
What would also be useful is rather than waiting only for the start of vblank, you mark the specific point within vblank where there would not be enough time to fill the entire frame (or enough time to switch banks if using a page flipping mechanism rather than plain buffering -that would be a lot faster). Thus if the next frame becomes ready during vblank and there's still enough time left, it displays, otherwise it waits until the next vblank period. (again, only useful for going up to the max framerate)
For 180 Hz without vsync that would literally mean 3 torn segments per page, but if you really want to see what's changed in that 1/3 of a frame, it would be useful. (again, that's where user set detail options would be preferred)
It seems like a lot of older games do vsync and double or triple buffering by default without any option to do otherwise. (some older games have options to drop to double buffering, but very few offering single buffering as an option -if they didn't offer it, they didn't do it at all for some really old games, but for most such PC games you rendered in main memory and copied to video RAM, so double buffering by default)
Of course they are, the population in general is very dumb and most people aren't capable of noticing the finer details. Why should gamers be any different? People accept badly damaged/dirty film presentations when going to see a movie (or digital projection with HD resolution blown up to 40 feet wide or drastically dim 3D projection). People accept MP3s as quality audio. People accept distorted recordings that are way too loud with tons of clipping that the studios put out these days (regardless of listening format). People accept crushed images in the JPEG format as acceptable viewing. Hell, tons of people even accept 4:3 images stretched to 16:9 for viewing on their HDTV sets just because "they paid for the entire screen and want to use it". People are retarded. This should not be a surprise to anyone. Striving for high quality will get you nowhere, especially when the majority of people are content with "average".Quote:
Wow... gamers are dumb.
I am not content with average. I always strive for better. But at least, in time, better usually becomes the new average... except in the case of CD to MP3.
Yeah my little bro bought Halo Reach and the screen tearing is really horrendous, but it's still fun to play. RE5 is probably one of the best looking multi-platform games to come out so far. I don't think I've seen any screen tearing, because capcom actually gives a shit. I <3 capcomQuote:
Originally Posted by Why-Disciple
OldSchool you are an idiot who cannot accept someones opinion is as valid as his own
"They promised Next Gen gaming, guys... WHERE THE HELL is it" Right here it is mostly just a graphical enhancement of the last as many generations are.
"I'd rather your opinion didn't count" Exactly my point you are an idiot.
"It's thanks to individuals like yourself for todays Mediocrity.
cheers" Nothing to do with little brats like you then?
"thks, asshole" No problem you whiney little cunt.
Attachment 1778