1059 réponses à ce sujet

[cynicalandbored]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered IGN found the 360 space version, all the videos they post of ME3 are from a 360, yet he reviews a PS3 version. And for that matter it sounds like he reviewed only the demo and claims to have played the rest on a PS3.

[Azzanadra]

Valkyre4 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

^ It was better content wise on the PS3. But in terms of general performance the 360 edged it.


"do you consider 15-20 frames per second "slightly" worse than 30
frames per second? Cause math say that this is a 33 to 50% performance
hit compared to 360 version."

You're making it sound like it runs at 15-20 FPS at all times.

Lensoftruth shows that the average FPS in the intro segment for PS3 was ~24 FPS. IGN confirmed that these framerate issues were only that serious at the part.

I dont think IGN "confirmed" anything to be honest. Their writting can be interpreted in different ways. It is actually vague. Why? Because if it was just that initial part, that lasts roughly 10-15 minutes tops out of a 40-50 hour game, why would he make a whole paragraph about it? What I think is happening is that the framerate issue is extremely severe at that part. But the rest of the game isnt free of this issue. Framerate problems probably still exist and they are such that are worth mentioning in a preview of a review and thats why the guy wrote about it.

It would be absolutely stupid for him to make a whole paragraph for framerate issues that are specific to just one small scene. Maybe the framerate is not 15-20 frames bad, it is 20-25 frames bad. I consider this performance unacceptable as well.5-10 frames difference out of a total of 30 is a huge difference.

Again I would love if the issue was only for that specific part, and I would love if IGN would make a comment about it explaining and reassuring PS3 users. If it only the earth part in the beggining, ok I can overlook it. If the entire game performs choppy then...no!

Is it just me, or are you trying to be Mr. Worst Case Scenerio?

Looks like your glass is half empty.

[Azzanadra]

cynicalandbored wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered IGN found the 360 space version, all the videos they post of ME3 are from a 360, yet he reviews a PS3 version. And for that matter it sounds like he reviewed only the demo and claims to have played the rest on a PS3.

/facepalm

You do know that EA gives IGN games to review early, right?

Finding the space thing was just for teh lulz.

Modifié par Azzanadra, 26 février 2012 - 07:11 .

[cynicalandbored]

Azzanadra wrote...

cynicalandbored wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered IGN found the 360 space version, all the videos they post of ME3 are from a 360, yet he reviews a PS3 version. And for that matter it sounds like he reviewed only the demo and claims to have played the rest on a PS3.

/facepalm

You do know that EA gives IGN games to review early, right?

Finding the space thing was just for teh lulz.

Don't facepalm at me! Okay, okay, so I fell for it. But it all made sense.. in my head. 

[Valkyre4]

Azzanadra wrote...

Valkyre4 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

^ It was better content wise on the PS3. But in terms of general performance the 360 edged it.


"do you consider 15-20 frames per second "slightly" worse than 30
frames per second? Cause math say that this is a 33 to 50% performance
hit compared to 360 version."

You're making it sound like it runs at 15-20 FPS at all times.

Lensoftruth shows that the average FPS in the intro segment for PS3 was ~24 FPS. IGN confirmed that these framerate issues were only that serious at the part.

I dont think IGN "confirmed" anything to be honest. Their writting can be interpreted in different ways. It is actually vague. Why? Because if it was just that initial part, that lasts roughly 10-15 minutes tops out of a 40-50 hour game, why would he make a whole paragraph about it? What I think is happening is that the framerate issue is extremely severe at that part. But the rest of the game isnt free of this issue. Framerate problems probably still exist and they are such that are worth mentioning in a preview of a review and thats why the guy wrote about it.

It would be absolutely stupid for him to make a whole paragraph for framerate issues that are specific to just one small scene. Maybe the framerate is not 15-20 frames bad, it is 20-25 frames bad. I consider this performance unacceptable as well.5-10 frames difference out of a total of 30 is a huge difference.

Again I would love if the issue was only for that specific part, and I would love if IGN would make a comment about it explaining and reassuring PS3 users. If it only the earth part in the beggining, ok I can overlook it. If the entire game performs choppy then...no!

Is it just me, or are you trying to be Mr. Worst Case Scenerio?

Looks like your glass is half empty.

Οr maybe yours is half full. I never said anything other than what logic dictates. I for one hope that I am wrong more than you think...

[MegaSovereign]

Valkyre4 wrote...

MegaSovereign wrote...

^ It was better content wise on the PS3. But in terms of general performance the 360 edged it.


"do you consider 15-20 frames per second "slightly" worse than 30
frames per second? Cause math say that this is a 33 to 50% performance
hit compared to 360 version."

You're making it sound like it runs at 15-20 FPS at all times.

Lensoftruth shows that the average FPS in the intro segment for PS3 was ~24 FPS. IGN confirmed that these framerate issues were only that serious at the part.

I dont think IGN "confirmed" anything to be honest. Their writting can be interpreted in different ways. It is actually vague. Why? Because if it was just that initial part, that lasts roughly 10-15 minutes tops out of a 40-50 hour game, why would he make a whole paragraph about it? What I think is happening is that the framerate issue is extremely severe at that part. But the rest of the game isnt free of this issue. Framerate problems probably still exist and they are such that are worth mentioning in a preview of a review and thats why the guy wrote about it.

It would be absolutely stupid for him to make a whole paragraph for framerate issues that are specific to just one small scene. Maybe the framerate is not 15-20 frames bad, it is 20-25 frames bad. I consider this performance unacceptable as well.5-10 frames difference out of a total of 30 is a huge difference.

Again I would love if the issue was only for that specific part, and I would love if IGN would make a comment about it explaining and reassuring PS3 users. If it only the earth part in the beggining, ok I can overlook it. If the entire game performs choppy then...no!

Well it's a review in progress. The journalist was reviewing it as he went. It's basically a first impressions article that will eventually turn into a full fledged review. So ofcourse he's going to mention the game's rough start.

You can basically tell that these issues only consistently show up in the intro segment. When you're doing the 2nd mission of the single player demo the game seemed to be running at 30 FPS. So that's why I'm fairly confident that these issues don't plague the entire game.

Modifié par MegaSovereign, 26 février 2012 - 07:25 .

[Azzanadra]

cynicalandbored wrote...

Azzanadra wrote...

cynicalandbored wrote...

Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I've gathered IGN found the 360 space version, all the videos they post of ME3 are from a 360, yet he reviews a PS3 version. And for that matter it sounds like he reviewed only the demo and claims to have played the rest on a PS3.

/facepalm

You do know that EA gives IGN games to review early, right?

Finding the space thing was just for teh lulz.

Don't facepalm at me! Okay, okay, so I fell for it. But it all made sense.. in my head. 

Ah Dont worry, it kinda does make sense but I think the actual review started before those two dudes even got ME3 on the 360

[Aargh12]

Sr.Prize wrote...

Well, it's decision time.

Do you take the hit and purchase the game, or hold out and wait until a patch is released?

This stuff cannot be patched. Especially not on consoles. It would require extensive rewriting of the game engine.

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

I'm mad I can't even enjoy ME3 to the fullest now because of the Awful Frame Rate at 1600x900 Resolution on my Laptop. 

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 26 février 2012 - 09:09 .

[Aargh12]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I'm mad I can't even enjoy ME3 to the fullest now because of the Awful Frame Rate at 1600x900 Resolution on my Laptop. 

Still, you are able to lower the details in game options or even try to tweak the settings in game's .ini file. PS3 players (and console gamers in general) can't do that. They're stuck at the level of detail and framerate "provided" by developers.

[zhengyingli]

Azzanadra wrote...

I would say ME2 was made without the PS3 in mind, unlike DA. No way am I
justifying this fumble, but when I look at former exclusives such as
bioshock and oblivion, I have to wonder if they really are incompetent.

Oblivion was actually better on the PS3 than the 360, despite being a port, it had better graphics, better performance and shorter loading times. I havn't played Bioshock on the consoles, I played that on PC so I cant say for that.

That's what I was trying to say, but my post became very confusing. To reword what I said, I think ME2 had no intention to be on PS3 at the beginning, therefore I'd like to think that some aspects of the port are out of their hands. BUT, seeing how Biosock and Oblivion faired better on the PS3, whoever's porting ME3 (gave ME2 a little bit of a break due to it being the first game ported) was indeed not as deligent as we would like.

I don't even mind a few hiccups (Arkham City had a few performance issue, but was very smooth most of the time), but if ME3 has as many out-of-sync audio as ME2, I would probably cry all day/night.

Edit:

Valkyre4 wrote...

^^ You didnt notice it on ME2 PS3? You really must have been one of the lucky ones. I had sound being out of sync most of the time and at some points it was so much that it looked like 1-2 seconds out of sync. I dont know how they cant make it work...

 

Dude, all the chaotic cutscenes during Jack's recruitment mission became even more chaotic due to out of sync audio. 

Modifié par zhengyingli, 26 février 2012 - 09:28 .

[MASSEFFECTfanforlife101]

Aargh12 wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I'm mad I can't even enjoy ME3 to the fullest now because of the Awful Frame Rate at 1600x900 Resolution on my Laptop. 

Still, you are able to lower the details in game options or even try to tweak the settings in game's .ini file. PS3 players (and console gamers in general) can't do that. They're stuck at the level of detail and framerate "provided" by developers.

Is it just the Demo to be the problem? People are sayng something about being unable to turn off this "V-sync."

Modifié par MASSEFFECTfanforlife101, 26 février 2012 - 09:24 .

[pmac_tk421]

They said that they were working on it, so hopefully we'll get a day 1 patch.

[Eterna]

Aargh12 wrote...

Sr.Prize wrote...

Well, it's decision time.

Do you take the hit and purchase the game, or hold out and wait until a patch is released?

This stuff cannot be patched. Especially not on consoles. It would require extensive rewriting of the game engine.

 Umm yes it can. My Skyrim was ptached and it doesn't have FPS issues anymore. 

[Aargh12]

Eterna5 wrote...
 Umm yes it can. My Skyrim was ptached and it doesn't have FPS issues anymore. 

Skyrim issues weren't really engine related. It was one script - the one responsible for bookshelves, that caused all problems (lagged the rest of the scripts). Sounds funny? But that almost killed the biggest game of 2011 on PS3 and took months to work out.


ME3 doesn't have that kind of scripts since it's mostly linear in level design.. 
It's deep in the engine - the engine that always performed poorly on PS3 and tbh, I haven't seen anyone who could make UE3 run and look on par with X360 iteration of it.

And well, if we're talking about Skyrim - it still has FPS issues, it still has lower FPS that X360 version. What Bethesda did was rewriting one scipt so that the game would not take performance hit after save game file hit certain size. The performance issue in ME3 starts at the beginning of the game - and if a whole game is the problem then it won't be patched. The games with performance issues (when it's engine related stuff) on PS3 were never patched and never will be, no matter what devs will say.

Modifié par Aargh12, 27 février 2012 - 06:20 .

[harryandgem]

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

Aargh12 wrote...

MASSEFFECTfanforlife101 wrote...

I'm mad I can't even enjoy ME3 to the fullest now because of the Awful Frame Rate at 1600x900 Resolution on my Laptop. 

Still, you are able to lower the details in game options or even try to tweak the settings in game's .ini file. PS3 players (and console gamers in general) can't do that. They're stuck at the level of detail and framerate "provided" by developers.

Is it just the Demo to be the problem? People are sayng something about being unable to turn off this "V-sync."

yes you can, you can change the settings for ps3 to a resolution of 576p, ive done this and the framerate is definatley improved, it can make many games run better and eliminate a lot of screen tear from certain games, i often lower the resolution it still looks ok to me.

[dayvancowboy1]

you people are talking out of your a**. UE3 is perfectly capable of running smoothly on the PS3 (Arkham City, Mortal Kombat, Unreal Tournament 3, Bulletstorm, Borderlands, Bioshock, Medal of Honor:Airborne and there are more...) i don't know if it performs better or not on the 360, even if it does it's not as pronounced as it is in ME3. generally speaking i've never encountered noticeable performance issues on any UE3 game up until now.

it's not the game engine who's incapable of running at 30fps on the PS3 or generally underpeforms, it's just that EA-Bioware put more time and polish into the console version that's gonna sell more and didn't properly optimize the game for the other console. that's all, it's very simple. you know it's true because visually both versions are identical and because it's been proven time and time again the engine has no problem running admirably on the PS3.

to clarify - i'm pretty confident no patch will come to save us. however, you should understand this situation is a result of negligence and nothing else. it's not incompetence or technological limitations with the game engine but lack of polish and optimization for the PS3 version. period.

Modifié par dayvancowboy1, 27 février 2012 - 08:50 .

[Eterna]

I just wish Bioware would freaking say something.

[ruiribeiro]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

...

it's not the game engine who's incapable of running at 30fps on the PS3 or generally underpeforms, it's just that EA-Bioware put more time and polish into the console version that's gonna sell more and didn't properly optimize the game for the other console. that's all, it's very simple. you know it's true because visually both versions are identical and because it's been proven time and time again the engine has no problem running admirably on the PS3.

to clarify - i'm pretty confident no patch will come to save us. however, you should understand this situation is a result of negligence and nothing else. it's not incompetence or technological limitations with the game engine but lack of polish and optimization for the PS3 version. period.

This is what I believe too...

[VivaLaWhatsername]

xHezz90 wrote...

 

[deleterguy]

 Sigh..Why can't they even make lip syncing good on the ps3...

[Cjail]

xHezz90 wrote...

xHezz90 wrote...

 

At least is something.

[Aargh12]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

you people are talking out of your a**. UE3 is perfectly capable of running smoothly on the PS3 (Arkham City, Mortal Kombat, Unreal Tournament 3, Bulletstorm, Borderlands, Bioshock, Medal of Honor:Airborne and there are more...)

Those games you mentioned perform good on PS3, but they don't perform or look as good as X360 versions of it (for example, lighting in Bulletstorm is crappy on PS3 - lack of god rays, etc). And Bioshock isn't UE3 - it's UE2.5 and PS3 version is considered one of the crappiest ports of all time (lower res, framerate, etc).

[Sr.Prize]

dayvancowboy1 wrote...

you people are talking out of your a**. UE3 is perfectly capable of running smoothly on the PS3 (Arkham City, Mortal Kombat, Unreal Tournament 3, Bulletstorm, Borderlands, Bioshock, Medal of Honor:Airborne and there are more...) i don't know if it performs better or not on the 360, even if it does it's not as pronounced as it is in ME3. generally speaking i've never encountered noticeable performance issues on any UE3 game up until now.

it's not the game engine who's incapable of running at 30fps on the PS3 or generally underpeforms, it's just that EA-Bioware put more time and polish into the console version that's gonna sell more and didn't properly optimize the game for the other console. that's all, it's very simple. you know it's true because visually both versions are identical and because it's been proven time and time again the engine has no problem running admirably on the PS3.

to clarify - i'm pretty confident no patch will come to save us. however, you should understand this situation is a result of negligence and nothing else. it's not incompetence or technological limitations with the game engine but lack of polish and optimization for the PS3 version. period.

Why are you confident in them not releasing a patch when they've released multiple patches for me2?

MegaSovereign makes some good points. Looking at the facts: the 2nd part of the demo does run and look smoother. I don't understand why they couldn't do that with the intro. Maybe all those giant reapers slowed down the framerate? OK, now I'm just guessing but the ign guy did say the framerate gets better as you play.

I guess we have to wait for the full review to get a definitive answer.

[VivaLaWhatsername]

Cjail wrote...

xHezz90 wrote...

xHezz90 wrote...

 

At least is something.

Yeah I just thought I would re-post it, just incase anyone missed it. I mean it's nothing awesome but like you said it's something (for example Bethesda didn't get back to anyone lol)