| Squilliam said: The question I was asking was not whether KZ2 looks 'better' or if it implements more advanced techniques. The question I was asking was considering they had differing design goals can you really say that one has better technology than the other? If we take John Carmacks word as gospel, 30fps relative to 60fps yields roughly 3* the performance budget per frame you can see that there is quite the performance tradeoff. Unless you can prove otherwise, the fact that the two highest selling multiplayer shooters are also the shooters with the lowest latency (Halo 3's latency as low as you can go @ 30fps) is quite telling. Call of Duty 4 sold once it was in players hands. The legs on that game were quite godly and that was simply due to word of mouth. Can you really call it a coincidence that the only 60fps shooter franchise is also the best selling franchise? One of the best selling Arcade games 'Trials HD' sold over half a million copies and had one of the best demo - purchase conversion rates, again it was 60fps! Perhaps the low latency is needed and the games themselves have suffered due to the marketing effect where people have been drawn to games which visually look better in video. You cannot get a 60fps video to even convey to the public on any of the gaming video sites the difference in gameplay. You have to wait until it gets into peoples hands. So given the benefit and tradeoffs for taking a game to 60fps, can you definitively say that a game has better technology simply because it looks better. What about playing better? |
First: this thread -and CGI's comments in the specific- was about visual technical prowess. That's why I said that you either bring the 60fps issue in the field of how it improves the visuals, or you accept that it went in the way of more sophisticated graphic effects. Saying that it's necessary for the MP experience is a red herring in this context, and I point to my previous post for the issue about its PC roots and its design goals.
Second: no, that's not how it works. I don't have to disprove your theory about low latency being the key to better gameplay and then to sale success, you have the burden to prove it. And no, I don't even consider Halo and CoD and Trials HD proofs in this sense. GTAIV is culprit of 30fps -and not rock steady at that- and a high latency when shooting. So what? It was a blockbuster anyway. R&C always boasted a smooth 60fps action, and it sold ok but not in the same league.
And more importantly, when you want to advance correlation hypothesis you should at least start by defining the terms you're using. The "latency" word you're touting as if it clearly meant something is actually quite devoid of a well defined value. Latency in what? The Gamasutra measurements and the DF ones were about the latency of some very easy "discrete" actions, such as shooting and jumping. That doesn't say much about the latency of other actions or more importantly the "feel" of movement and aiming. Which is much more about inertia and acceleration curves than the difference between shooting in 100ms (3 frames) in Halo 3 vs shooting in 133ms (4 frames) in KZ2 vs shooting in about 67ms in CoD.
Frankly, the 1/30th of a second difference in shooting time between Halo and KZ2 isn't even close in my mind to what any reasonable person will find as a necessity for "good gameplay". Halo, CoD, KZ2 have very different gameplay styles differing in speed, immediatness, aim assist, matchmaking, multiplayer modes, weaponry, progression and ranking... I can find much more poignant commonalities between the gameplay of the two most successful franchises than being "low latency".
