| Squilliam said: He said technology. Furthermore what a lot of people ascribe to better technology is actually better artistry in games. Just because the series has roots in the PC gaming space where framerate is more defined by the end user rather than by the developer, doesn't imply an automatic transition to 60fps. Most games which transition onto consoles, transition onto a 30fps framerate. Call of Duty is one of the only series which springs to mind which doesn't run at 30fps. I don't have time to finish writing but as it stands its 70ms vs 150+ms. Then you add 2-3 frames for the TV's latency and you can have a difference of over 150ms. A lot of people will notice that and latency was one very importaint reason why Killzone 2's controls were panned. |
I don't want to put words in CGI's mouth, but in the context of this thread -and knowing his interest in graphics- I think it was obvious that he was speaking about graphics technology.
As for latency:
1) your math is off. If you have 70 vs 150 ms, and you add 2-3 frames for your (bad) TV, you add them to both cases so the difference is still 80ms. And actually, if you add 2 (ie about 66ms) it becomes 133 vs 213 ms. The absolute difference is the same, but the relative difference has decreased from +115% to +50%.
2) you're still talking about the latency between when you press the shoot button and when your gun shoots on the screen. This is the lamest definition of "control latency" I can imagine for games where the most important controls are those for moving and aiming. Any numbers on them? I guess not, because they're a very complicated affair.
3) once again, this "shooting latency" has nothing to do with people not liking KZ2's "heavy" controls: it's about 1/30th of a second from that of Halo 3, which people never found offensive, and better than GTAIV.
As demonstrated with a) the early patch lessening the turning inertia from the early model showed in the demo and b) the control option -dubbed "high precision aiming", I think- later offered with another patch, all the difference is in the way GG modeled the inertia, acceleration curve, and dead zone. Even with those changes and options and taking in account the almost nonexistant aim assist in KZ2 many players never liked it, and I'm fine with it, and even called the controls "broken" or "laggy", which I'm not fine with.
Please don't join the flock and don't try to pass as if these gameplay design choices are proofs of technical faults, you would only lose credit in a serious discussion.
