34 réponses à ce sujet

[capn233]

Unfortunately, Cerberus is getting Lockheed to put attitude control motors in the front section of the next gen Atlas missiles, so we will never be able to out turn them in ME4.

[Teabaggin Krogan]

OMG! Is that what ME3 looks like on Xbox? BRB, need to go buy an Xbox.

 

Seriously, I swear those graphics are noticably sharper. Almost as huge a jump as FF13 when I upgraded from a 480 TV to a 720, there were things there I never knew existed!

 

(No, I am not just trolling, that really did strike me as a noticable difference, I am sad now)

Really but it almost looks the same to me! What's the difference?

Have you seen it on Pc then? Almost made me cry the first time I saw it in 1080p 60 fps.

(sheds a single peasantly tear)

[Arkhne]

Really but it almost looks the same to me! What's the difference?

Have you seen it on Pc then? Almost made me cry the first time I saw it in 1080p 60 fps.

(sheds a single peasantly tear)

 

Well, it's not huge, but there is more definition at the edges of things, it's a little blurrier on PS3. Also, the ground of that particular area is SLIGHTLY more detailed, makes me curious about the dust/particle effects of some maps. The Energy Drain is also slightly more defined (probably the particle effect thing again). The rocket also had a more complete fire/thrust effect (Again, probably just the particles) I'm pretty sure PS3 skimps on the particle effects in general because they usually don't add much, but take a noticable amount of computing power. I EXPECT differences with PC, but I assumed PS3/Xbox would be the same, but clearly the Xbox handles things a little more completely.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

In the other, the trajectory is updated much more often to the point of making veritable U-turns.

 

Honestly, ask any console player, this is exactly what happens. Seeing an Atlas missile pull a 180 to hit someone is not unusual at all. The visuals may not update frequently enough to show the path (especially on PS 3 where framerate can get quite a bit below 30) but the rocket itself is still redirecting to hit the player.

 

In fact, PS3 players are the ones you should ask, because we can tell you with certainty that the framerate can get lower than 1 FPS but that does not make it easier to hit enemies or dodge their attacks, it's the opposite.

 

30 FPS may be easier than 60 FPS for a lot of things, but the notion that enemy effectiveness decreases in relation to player effectiveness in a linear fashion with framerate is a myth. Eventually, the lower the framerate, the more disadvantages the player has compared to the AI. Locking the framerate on PC does not reliably recreate the conditions of playing on console. There are a number of differences that have a significant impact, not the least of which is that changes of direction while sprinting (which is exactly what we are talking about) are nearly impossible on console regardless of framerate, but they are not on PC.

 

This isn't a debate about which is easier to play - PC players have a much higher difficulty potential than console players - I'm merely pointing out that you don't know how the game works on console unless you actually play it on console. Locking FPS to 30 is not the same thing.

[Jeremiah12LGeek]

WHY ON EARTH IS THERE ANY KIND OF SERIOUS DISCUSSION HAPPENING

 

[Teabaggin Krogan]

Well, it's not huge, but there is more definition at the edges of things, it's a little blurrier on PS3. Also, the ground of that particular area is SLIGHTLY more detailed, makes me curious about the dust/particle effects of some maps. The Energy Drain is also slightly more defined (probably the particle effect thing again). The rocket also had a more complete fire/thrust effect (Again, probably just the particles) I'm pretty sure PS3 skimps on the particle effects in general because they usually don't add much, but take a noticable amount of computing power. I EXPECT differences with PC, but I assumed PS3/Xbox would be the same, but clearly the Xbox handles things a little more completely.

Hmm..strange because I didn't really feel like those things were any worse on ps3. Could it be that you're viewing this on a higher quality say display, like say full hd and so that could be an influence here right?

[Arkhne]

Honestly, ask any console player, this is exactly what happens. Seeing an Atlas missile pull a 180 to hit someone is not unusual at all. The visuals may not update frequently enough to show the path (especially on PS 3 where framerate can get quite a bit below 30) but the rocket itself is still redirecting to hit the player.

 

In fact, PS3 players are the ones you should ask, because we can tell you with certainty that the framerate can get lower than 1 FPS but that does not make it easier to hit enemies or dodge their attacks, it's the opposite.

 

30 FPS may be easier than 60 FPS for a lot of things, but the notion that enemy effectiveness decreases in a linear fashion with framerate is a myth. Eventually, the lower the framerate, the more disadvantages the player has compared to the AI. Locking the framerate on PC does not reliably recreate the conditions of playing on console. There are a number of differences that have a significant impact, not the least of which is that changes of direction while sprinting (which is exactly what we are talking about) are nearly impossible on console regardless of framerate, but they are not on PC.

 

This isn't a debate about which is easier to play - PC players have a much higher difficulty potential than console players - I'm merely pointing out that you don't know how the game works on console unless you actually play it on console. Locking FPS to 30 is not the same thing.

 

This is all truth. Admittedly, the AI CAN be a little sluggish in making decisions (IE: You generally half half a second out of cover before every enemy and his buddy turn to you), they still have pinpoint accuracy (Gold/Platinum Cannibals feel like Silver Marauders, Gold/Platinum Marauders feel like Turrets). Siege Pulse, Atlas Rockets, and Banshee balls REGULARLY do near 180s, my own Siege Pulses have done spirals to hit enemies.

 

Framerate drops do NOT help, they make the game seriously difficult. As a consumate host (fk this game offhost, never again), I pay a lot of attention to framerate, because it is the first sign of memleak, I've become a pretty good judge of when a reboot is necessary, and always err on the side of caution (hazard maps and collectors are great to play, just need to be careful). Almost half my games are played at slight frameloss (Probably 26-28fps), it does not really affect the AI, but it DOES affect your ability to REACT to the AI, when FPS drops below 21-24, cover becomes nigh-useless, and everybody starts to lag, if you haven't rebooted at this point, DO SO, PS3 crashrate skyrockets at about 16FPS, iirc.

 

I am not disputing 60+ FPS enemies being monsters, but low FPS hinders the player.

 

 

 

Hmm..strange because I didn't really feel like those things were any worse on ps3. Could it be that you're viewing this on a higher quality say display, like say full hd and so that could be an influence here right?

 

 

HDTV on PS3, shitty laptop on BSN.

[Salarian Master Race]

Ah, Sony.  Only took them four generations to figure out that consoles need RAM.

 

...PS4 DOES have RAM in it, right?

[Catastrophy]

Ah, Sony.  Only took them four generations to figure out that consoles need RAM.

 

...PS4 DOES have RAM in it, right?

Dunno, but why is it RANDOM access memory, tho? If all the data is stored randomly - how the heck is it possible to find it again? Magic? Little people inside?

[The Real Pearl #2]

I want to punch an atlas. Like literally have someone create a scale replica, I want to climb it and smack the windshield and mangle the pile of man shaped spaghetti inside the cockpit. I can pretend I am a vorcha while doing all this.