By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Sony - Killzone 2 framerate can drop as low as 20fps

NJ5 said:
So not only is it not 60 fps, but it's not even a stable 30 fps? If this is what passes for a technically good game these days, fine...

It's quite annoying that most of the 360 games I played have noticeable framerate dips whereas the Wii is much better in this regard.

 

Dude we already know you hate ps3, you dont have to come to every ps3 related thread and troll we already know.



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

Around the Network
Griffin said:
Well i just played the demo again and had it running under 5FPS. Some guy died up against the wall with no head in the warehouse and i went over and slashed the shit out of his body. Blood was all over the place and the game was crawling.

lol, hello Halo: Combat Evolved. Doing that even on the PC version makes it chug, lol.

 



oh and MGS4 is 30FPS and it rocks



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

CGI-Quality said:
@ Euphoria

Exactly, and after playing COD 4/COD WaW & Killzone 2's demo, I'd take KZ2. IMO, everything about the gameplay in KZ2 is far more fun than in COD. These little frustrations of a framerate dip here or there is just nitpicking an obviously great game. How come the reviews (of the mass majority) don't mention this as an "issue"? Probably because: it's NOT an issue.

Also, Euphoria: check out PSU.com. They spoke to Guerrilla about the possibility of co-op added in later as DLC. You'll probably find the article pretty interesting.

 

Well I am not necessarily saying that Killzone 2 is much better than COD4/5, I am just giving a pretty damn good reason as to why it does not run at 60FPS like COD4 does. I just think the whole 60FPS thing is overrated. Some say if you play MKWii offline and then online you will see the difference, but if you played MKWii in only 30FPS from the start in both modes you wouldn't have even cared to begin with. It is such a petty argument.

 

The way I see it is that if someone has to go to this level just to find a flaw then Sony and GG must have made one hell of a fine game.

 

I heard something about the co-op a few days ago. I also heard something about DLC following shortly after the games release. Supposedly both free and priced DLC.



iPhone = Great gaming device. Don't agree? Who cares, because you're wrong.

Currently playing:

Final Fantasy VI (iOS), Final Fantasy: Record Keeper (iOS) & Dragon Quest V (iOS)     

    

Got a retro room? Post it here!

twesterm said:
  1. I never trust people when they say A study says... since it's pretty easy to make a study say whatever you want.
  2. I trust the study even less when you provide no source.
  3. You can't really compare two totally different games.
  4. Since you're on a TV, again, it doesn't matter if you're running at 60FPS because TV's cannot do 60FPS
  5. Processing 30FPS is hard enough but the higher FPS you go, the more strain it puts on the machine.  Some people can notice a difference but not nearly everybody and not nearly enough to justify the processing power it takes.  That power is much more wisely spent on other things.

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't every television that can do progressive scan display in 60FPS? That is, every EDTV and HDTV on the market?



Around the Network
Khuutra said:
twesterm said:
  1. I never trust people when they say A study says... since it's pretty easy to make a study say whatever you want.
  2. I trust the study even less when you provide no source.
  3. You can't really compare two totally different games.
  4. Since you're on a TV, again, it doesn't matter if you're running at 60FPS because TV's cannot do 60FPS
  5. Processing 30FPS is hard enough but the higher FPS you go, the more strain it puts on the machine.  Some people can notice a difference but not nearly everybody and not nearly enough to justify the processing power it takes.  That power is much more wisely spent on other things.

Forgive my ignorance, but doesn't every television that can do progressive scan display in 60FPS? That is, every EDTV and HDTV on the market?

on stadard def 60 for ntsc, 50 for pal  and i dont know secam. Interlaced does 30 every other frames, Progresive is 60.

 



dd if = /dev/brain | tail -f | grep games | nc -lnvvp 80

Hey Listen!

https://archive.org/details/kohina_radio_music_collection

I never played an SNES game with a frame rate dip.



I'm Unamerica and you can too.

The Official Huge Monster Hunter Thread: 



The Hunt Begins 4/20/2010 =D

radha said:
oh and MGS4 is 30FPS and it rocks

 

 MGS4 sometimes jumps to 60 FPS.



 

 

 

 

 

twesterm said:
Khuutra said:
twesterm said:
Khuutra said:
twesterm said:
20 isn't good, but as long as it's a smooth 20 and not a drop of something like 26 to 20 it's barely going to be noticeable.

20 is just barely pushing past the edge but the real thing that kills games are framerate spikes. As long as it's a constant 20-ish with the -ish being on the higher side of 20, it's not a huge deal.

I tend to agree with this, but part of me tends to think that the higher end of it is going to be in the 50s, which could be jarring.

Does the game ever go above 30?  If it does they're just wasting their time and processing power.

I actually don't know, as I've never played the game and wouldnt be able to measure it that closely anyway. Anecdotally, from the way people talk about smoothness, it would seem that it does?

If it never went above 30fps, it would really put the whole "better graphics" question in an entirely different light, factoring framerate.

 

Going above 30 on TV there's a slight difference, but there's no point in it being that the trade off totally isn't worth it.  Most games aren't going to notice the difference between a game that runs at 30fps on a TV and another that runs at 60fps on a TV.

Also, if you don't cap your framerate and you're running at lets say a nice 50-60fps and then it suddenly drops to something like 25 it is going to be painfulyl noticeable.  When you cap at 30, dipping down to 25 is absolutely no problem, but going from something like even 40 to 25 will be really noticeable and look and feel like ass.

So there are two reasons why having an uncapped fps on a TV is a bad idea:

  1. Most people aren't going to notice the difference between a smooth 30 and a smooth 60
  2. You're in a much higher danger of noticing frame rate drops.  It's much harder to maintain 50-60fps than it is 25-30fps.

The other reason you don't want to do this is because all that processing power it takes to maintain that really high framerate most people aren't going to notice could be much better spent on *anything* else. 

Would you rather have a feature that most people aren't going to notice or an extra explosion (random example) that everyone is going to notice?

 

It is funny how we talk about these framerates.

 

For years, the standard for TVs and movies was 30 fps. That is what VHS at SP taped in VHS at EP which is what I usually use is 10 fps). That is what professional editting equipment used HH:MM:SS:FF.

Now we are going twice -- to something that produces great pictures but that can be difficult to maintain or for the average person to really notice (since they were trained at 30 fps).

I agree that keeping things simiplier is better. I know that playing the Wii on Mario Kart that when you have multiple players or go on line with two that the frame rate slows (at least on my machines). Considering that I am using a 27-inch SD sharp TV (that pre-dates HD), I can imagine how less impressive that -- or any massive slow down -- looks on a larger/better/clearer set.

 

Mike from Morgantown



      


I am Mario.


I like to jump around, and would lead a fairly serene and aimless existence if it weren't for my friends always getting into trouble. I love to help out, even when it puts me at risk. I seem to make friends with people who just can't stay out of trouble.

Wii Friend Code: 1624 6601 1126 1492

NNID: Mike_INTV

radha said:
NJ5 said:
So not only is it not 60 fps, but it's not even a stable 30 fps? If this is what passes for a technically good game these days, fine...

It's quite annoying that most of the 360 games I played have noticeable framerate dips whereas the Wii is much better in this regard.

 

Dude we already know you hate ps3, you dont have to come to every ps3 related thread and troll we already know.

For months and years we've been hearing about how KZ2 is supposed to be the be-all-end-all of technical superiority on consoles. Now is the time when those claims get judged, so get over it.

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957