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

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

Khuutra on 19 February 2009
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.



Around the Network
livinglegend01 on 19 February 2009

Still gonna get the game regardless.



twesterm on 19 February 2009
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.



 

Khuutra on 19 February 2009
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.



The Anarchyz on 19 February 2009
twesterm said:
Euphoria14 said:
I guess it is official then.

Gears has frame drops.
Gears 2 has frame drops.
Mass Effect has frame drops.
Lost Odyssey has frame drops.

Does this mean we can no longer compare them to games of the same genre that do not have these same "issues"? I guess so.

 

Gears and Gears 2 framerate wasn't a problem, I haven't played the full KZ2 game yet so can't comment on that, but Mass Effect is a perfect example of absolutely unacceptable framerate. 

It was pretty consistently below 20 and the game just suffered for it.  Gear and Gears 2 didn't suffer because it wasn't the entire game and was rarely really noticeable.

A friend of mine told me about that, i couldn't believe it (because i play it on PC) until i saw it, they were really consistent drops...



Around the Network
twesterm on 19 February 2009
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?



 

pbroy on 19 February 2009
Euphoria14 said:
twesterm said:
Euphoria14 said:
I guess it is official then.

Gears has frame drops.
Gears 2 has frame drops.
Mass Effect has frame drops.
Lost Odyssey has frame drops.

Does this mean we can no longer compare them to games of the same genre that do not have these same "issues"? I guess so.

 

Gears and Gears 2 framerate wasn't a problem, I haven't played the full KZ2 game yet so can't comment on that, but Mass Effect is a perfect example of absolutely unacceptable framerate. 

It was pretty consistently below 20 and the game just suffered for it.  Gear and Gears 2 didn't suffer because it wasn't the entire game and was rarely really noticeable.

 

Exactly, that is why we did not see any articles on it.

In this case however, no reviewers have even mentioned these frame drops which would mean it is a non-issue as well. I am just wondering why they felt the need to go through screen tests and such in order to find such a meaningless flaw that everyone else felt was a non-issue.

I never said I thought Gears frame drops were an issue, that is why I ended my post with a .


http://www.dose.ca/games/story.html?id=78eed76b-e4be-45ad-9f28-fa911212174c

http://www.worthplaying.com/article.php?sid=58265

"The frame rate is consistently below what is considered smooth, and it often hitches and stutters to make things even worse. To top things off, when this happens, the controls are often affected by input lag as well, making the gameplay feel like you're trying to shoehorn and play a maxed-out Crysis on a computer that clearly has no business doing so."

VGChartz♥♥♥♥♥FOREVER
Xbone... the new "N" word   Apparently I troll MS now | Evidence | Evidence
Khuutra on 19 February 2009
twesterm said:

 

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?

...That... that was very informative. Thank you. I retract my prior statement.

I didn't realize that one could cap framerates in such a way. I don't know why it didn't occur to me.



kutasek on 19 February 2009
pbroy said:
Euphoria14 said:
twesterm said:
Euphoria14 said:
I guess it is official then.

Gears has frame drops.
Gears 2 has frame drops.
Mass Effect has frame drops.
Lost Odyssey has frame drops.

Does this mean we can no longer compare them to games of the same genre that do not have these same "issues"? I guess so.

 

Gears and Gears 2 framerate wasn't a problem, I haven't played the full KZ2 game yet so can't comment on that, but Mass Effect is a perfect example of absolutely unacceptable framerate. 

It was pretty consistently below 20 and the game just suffered for it.  Gear and Gears 2 didn't suffer because it wasn't the entire game and was rarely really noticeable.

 

Exactly, that is why we did not see any articles on it.

In this case however, no reviewers have even mentioned these frame drops which would mean it is a non-issue as well. I am just wondering why they felt the need to go through screen tests and such in order to find such a meaningless flaw that everyone else felt was a non-issue.

I never said I thought Gears frame drops were an issue, that is why I ended my post with a .

 

http://www.dose.ca/games/story.html?id=78eed76b-e4be-45ad-9f28-fa911212174c

"The frame rate is consistently below what is considered smooth, and it often hitches and stutters to make things even worse. To top things off, when this happens, the controls are often affected by input lag as well, making the gameplay feel like you're trying to shoehorn and play a maxed-out Crysis on a computer that clearly has no business doing so."

I don't see it, where do you see it, that he said that.

 



Griffin on 19 February 2009
pbroy said:
Euphoria14 said:
twesterm said:
Euphoria14 said:
I guess it is official then.

Gears has frame drops.
Gears 2 has frame drops.
Mass Effect has frame drops.
Lost Odyssey has frame drops.

Does this mean we can no longer compare them to games of the same genre that do not have these same "issues"? I guess so.

 

Gears and Gears 2 framerate wasn't a problem, I haven't played the full KZ2 game yet so can't comment on that, but Mass Effect is a perfect example of absolutely unacceptable framerate. 

It was pretty consistently below 20 and the game just suffered for it.  Gear and Gears 2 didn't suffer because it wasn't the entire game and was rarely really noticeable.

 

Exactly, that is why we did not see any articles on it.

In this case however, no reviewers have even mentioned these frame drops which would mean it is a non-issue as well. I am just wondering why they felt the need to go through screen tests and such in order to find such a meaningless flaw that everyone else felt was a non-issue.

I never said I thought Gears frame drops were an issue, that is why I ended my post with a .

 

http://www.dose.ca/games/story.html?id=78eed76b-e4be-45ad-9f28-fa911212174c

"The frame rate is consistently below what is considered smooth, and it often hitches and stutters to make things even worse. To top things off, when this happens, the controls are often affected by input lag as well, making the gameplay feel like you're trying to shoehorn and play a maxed-out Crysis on a computer that clearly has no business doing so."

I just Ctrl F that and it never came up in the review....