Topic: Framerate vs Detail

[getter77]

Framerate is paramount in terms of the gaming experience.  Every game should aim for 60FPS if for no other reason that if something goes unexpectedly wrong with multiplayer or co-op the game will still likely be outputting at least 30FPS.

The Wii has enough challenge on its hands in the first place...adding framerate issues to further complicate the matter of control/gameplay would be foolhardy.  There is no legitimate reason...EVER...for a Wii game to have a less than optimal framerate.

[Ceric]

F-Zero on my system sacrificed stability for Smooth framerates.  I still haven't been able to finish a circuit without it restarting.  

[ThePerm]

yeah warcraft 2-3 was a good example....i remember not liking their switch to 3d, my logic was that starcraft/warcracft 2 werre limited in the amount of uniuts you could have on screen and that sucked...however it would be cool if the game had starcraft graphics but had 1000s more units. Warcraft 3 was 3d......had a hero system...and yeah....um wasnt as big..just prettier.

[Requiem]

Quote
Originally posted by: Ceric
F-Zero on my system sacrificed stability for Smooth framerates.  I still haven't been able to finish a circuit without it restarting.

I suggest you buy a new disk (or return yours), because that's not suppose to happen.

I have never had a problem with my F-Zero...

[KDR_11k]

however it would be cool if the game had starcraft graphics but had 1000s more units.

Blizzard won't let you select more than twelve units at once, I think with their anti-user GUI paradigms 1000 units would be hell to control. Leave the mass warfare to Chris Taylor.

[Smoke39]

Quote
Originally posted by: VGrevolution
The only game I can think of where limited draw distance actually worked (even though it was probaly due  to technical limitations) was Superman 64, j/k. No actually the game I was thinking of was Turok 1, even though the draw distance was limited it gave the game fantastic atmosphere, sadly limited draw distance detracts more than it adds in most games.

I was thinking the same thing.  The incredibly thick fog obstructing your view kind of takes the place of thick, polygon hungry foliage obstructing your view.  It also made caves and the catacombs level feel darker without making everything impossible to see.  It may have been primarily to limit the number of polygons being drawn to maintain a decent framerate, but Turok is a good example of artfully working around limitations for the sake of gameplay.

[couchmonkey]

As long as the framerate is consistent, I don't care.  30 fps is fine by me, as long as it doesn't slow down.  60 fps is nicer, but I'm willing to sacrifice it for more detail.

Someone mentioned draw distance, that's pretty darn important as well.  It's the one thing I was disappointed by in Wind Waker, all those crow's nests popping out of nowhere.

[MattVDB]

So this past weekend I played a lot of 360.  Great system.  Totally buying one after this weekend's time with it.  That still doesn't change the fact that I had issue with several of the games graphics.

Dynasty Warriors is the first one that comes to mind.  Extremely fluid frame rate.  Dozens of characters on screen.  Co-op.  The one thing that killed the graphics for me though, was the crazy short draw distance.  We're talking 64is here.  Maybe it's better in single player, but that game did not impress me like a next gen game should.

Next was GRAW.  Extremely good looking game single player.  Extremely poor looking game multiplayer.  They seem to have kept all details for each of the screens in multiplayer, and what that did was just kill the framerate.  Like to the 15 and below range.  Still a fun game.  Still playable, but very annoying.  The most 'next gen' bit about it to me though, was not the graphics.  It was the size and scale of the levels.  Many many paths to take through the city helped draw you in SO much.

COD2 was where it was at though.  They knew what to do.  A gorgeous game single player, and an extremely fluid and good looking game multiplayer.  The fact that bodies stay around on long after they've been killed is impressive (same thing in GRAW).  It even gave me a kill I wouldn't have been able to get before (hiding lying down with dead bodies is fun).

I figure that if I can play TimeSplitters 2 at 60 fps, I should be able to play a FPS on the 360 at 60 fps as well.  Is that to much to ask for?

[ShyGuy]

Hey Matt, have you played Dynasty Warriors on the PS2? How did the 360 version compare? My biggest gripe with the Dynasty/Samurai Warriors games on the PS2 were the technical limitations: draw distance, number of enemies onscreen, and much, much slowdown.

[Infernal Monkey]

Framerate plz, I would like to leave the days of N64 far behind. Though with Gears of War on 360 running on a 4MB Expansion Pak, I guess that dream will never come true!  

[MattVDB]

Yes I did play Dynasty Warriors for PS2, but very litte.  I played less on 360, so I'm hardly qualified to make full comparisons.  In my time with the 360 verson I was impressed with the number of characters on screen and the lack of slow down. The draw distance, if I had to say, was very similar to what I remember being in the PS2 version.  

Although saying that, I would still have a look at it, as I really didn't play much of either.