Augemitbutter
Member
MNC said:
oh fuck, this is good.
MNC said:
Segata Sanshiro said:Hey man, it averages 24 FPS. That's PERFECTLY cinematic! Sure, it slows down to 17 FPS at times, but that's just to make things even more cinematic.
you can't be serious?SpokkX said:I own a PS3 but never bother looking in the PS-store more than perhaps twice a years (imo PSN sucks as much as the Wii store)
OXM reviewer Jon Blyth writes: 'Lords Of Shadow is big. Actually, big's too little a word. It's monolithic... From the Resi 4 mood of the scarecrow puzzle to the unexpected oddity of the music box level, this is game that seemingly hasn't heard of DLC - and decides to offer you immense value for money instead.'
OXM calls the game 'huge and magnificent', pouring particular praise on its 'vast imagination' and 'ambitious scope'.
There are a couple of niggles, not least that LOS 'sometimes fails to effectively communicate where you should be going' - a bit of pain in a game whose campaign reportedly weighs in at 20-plus hours.
SolidSnakex said:
SolidSnakex said:
OXM reviewer Jon Blyth writes: 'Lords Of Shadow is big. Actually, big's too little a word. It's monolithic...
Segata Sanshiro said:Wow! It's huge, impenetrable, and uniform?!
ITS MONOLITHICNESS CONTRIBUTES TO ITS ENORMITYSegata Sanshiro said:Wow! It's huge, impenetrable, and uniform?!
Y'know, if reviewers simply can't contain themselves from using impressive-sounding adjectives, the least they could do is keep a Webster's handy.
Anyway, sounds great. Lack of guidance shouldn't be a problem for me, because I have a three-minutes to GameFAQs policy on all idiotic aimlessness in action games.
Segata Sanshiro said:Wow! It's huge, impenetrable, and uniform?!
Y'know, if reviewers simply can't contain themselves from using impressive-sounding adjectives, the least they could do is keep a Webster's handy.
Anyway, sounds great. Lack of guidance shouldn't be a problem for me, because I have a three-minutes to GameFAQs policy on all idiotic aimlessness in action games.
Y2Kev said:Can we gameshare a demo?
Y2Kev said:ITS MONOLITHICNESS CONTRIBUTES TO ITS ENORMITY
Really though, OXM and GameInformer scores are completely irrelevant.
Can we gameshare a demo?
Segata Sanshiro said:Anyway, sounds great. Lack of guidance shouldn't be a problem for me, because I have a three-minutes to GameFAQs policy on all idiotic aimlessness in action games.
Just saw that comment. I have the demo, so let me know if you still want videos.CcrooK said:Blim should give us the goods with videos![]()
FrenchMovieTheme said:ugh, i think i'll switch my pre-order to 360. ps3 is the "lead" console for this game and its still running at sub 30 fps?
somehow i think the 360 version will be running smoother
There have been 360 videos of the same area and it seemed to chug in similar locations. Both versions will probably be the same.FrenchMovieTheme said:ugh, i think i'll switch my pre-order to 360. ps3 is the "lead" console for this game and its still running at sub 30 fps?
somehow i think the 360 version will be running smoother
Blimblim said:Just saw that comment. I have the demo, so let me know if you still want videos.
FreedomFrisbee said:We've seen gameplay and people NOW say that 24 fps will kill it? If it truly would have killed it, wouldn't you have noticed before? Geez.
sillymonkey321 said:Maybe i'm not noticing things, but it seems like lately the trend is to pretend that sub-30fps games are totally great and anyone who wants a smooth playing came is crazy. I don't have a pc gaming rig ( just a peasant laptop for old games) but i remember when people would cry out for 60 frames/sec and now the mindset is " hey, a little stuttering doesn't bother me"
Alright, on it.CcrooK said:That would be fantastic. Anything would do. I think videos showing the combat in play would be nice.
And chances are, we are getting the E3 demo.
We US peasants should get the demo on both platforms Tuesday, almost there!Y2Kev said:It's an old demo. Optimization is the last thing they do.
Sooo I need to play this but I am neither European nor PS+...
Blimblim said:Alright, on it.
FreedomFrisbee said:We've seen gameplay and people NOW say that 24 fps will kill it? If it truly would have killed it, wouldn't you have noticed and complained before? Geez.
Amir0x said:At 24fps, I don't know if I can stomach it. 24fps is simply not acceptable under any goddamn terms in this day and age.
brandonh83 said:The gameplay videos tell the truth. every gameplay video I've seen seems to run just fine, statistics aside it doesn't bother me. now if I get the game and it drops a lot and underperforms, that'll be disappointing, but every gameplay video I've seen looks perfectly fine to me.
Amir0x said:The fact that you're not sensitive to horrific framerates obviously means zero to me.
At 24fps, it's not going to be something playable for me for any long period of time.
The framerate of the game is anything but horrific. You guys are just ultra sensitive.Amir0x said:The fact that you're not sensitive to horrific framerates obviously means zero to me.
At 24fps, it's not going to be something playable for me for any long period of time.
~Kinggi~ said:The framerate of the game is anything but horrific. You guys are just ultra sensitive.
FrenchMovieTheme said:ugh, i think i'll switch my pre-order to 360. ps3 is the "lead" console for this game and its still running at sub 30 fps?
somehow i think the 360 version will be running smoother
Amir0x said:The fact that you're not sensitive to horrific framerates obviously means zero to me.
Mrbob said:Hope it doesn't make me a frame rate whore that I'd like at least 30fps. :/
This is a western developed title. I'd be shocked if PS3 is the lead.
CcrooK said:Should I give you your pills now or later?
Amir0x said:IF it is 24fps, it's unarguably horrific. You might be totally able to live with it, and that's fine, but like I said I'm not. And I was fully ready to get this game.
I'm not even sure how much lower gamer standards can get at this point, Christ.
I don't know how you ever survived the PSX/N64 days.Amir0x said:IF it is 24fps, it's unarguably horrific. You might be totally able to live with it, and that's fine, but like I said I'm not. And I was fully ready to get this game.
I'm not even sure how much lower gamer standards can get at this point, Christ.
well, the slowdowns apparently happen during cutscenes and I think I read somewhere (Digital Foundry I think it was from the recent Halo Reach article) that optimizing frame-rate in cutscenes is usually one of the last things that is done during development, I don't know if it is true or not or if it applies to all games.Segata Sanshiro said:Dipping down to 17 is stranger danger, but I'm very much hoping that's a result of an old build and/or doesn't happen often. Actually I'm kind of hoping that extremely variable frame rate (from 17-33) is just a result of an old build, because that's a pretty big range. Reviews so far aren't saying much about the framerate though, so I'd hope it's not a problem in the final build.
FreedomFrisbee said:RELATIVELY horrific. The truth is that with adequate motion blur, there is no real need for anything above 24fps. After all, it's what we see on TV and in the movies everyday. The only reason a game might need to be greater than that is because of some functional purpose to it, like in a fighting game where each frame matters.
FreedomFrisbee said:But ya, my point still stands. Unless you looked at the gameplay videos and went 'this framerate is shitty' your complaints are silly.
Zophar said:I don't know how you ever survived the PSX/N64 days.
FreedomFrisbee said:RELATIVELY horrific. The truth is that with adequate motion blur, there is no real need for anything above 24fps. After all, it's what we see on TV and in the movies everyday. The only reason a game might need to be greater than that is because of some functional purpose to it, like in a fighting game where each frame matters.
The only visual reason more than 24fps would be needed in any game is if there was shitty/no motion blur. Then things would just look choppy. With motion blur, you actually can't tell, because (gasp) your eyes see things with built in blur. So it's like you're looking at real life or something!
But ya, my point still stands. Unless you looked at the gameplay videos and went 'this framerate is shitty' your complaints are silly.
Amir0x said:What the fuck jesus christ seriously i'm not having another framerate debate with people who clearly don't understand the first thing about framerates
I don't mean to be mean, but, there's really nothing I can say here.
24fps, in an action game, is a potential problem depending on the demands of the combat system. This game doesn't look particularly fast, BUT it does look comparable in combat speed to GOW which ran well above 30 fps and surely benefited from the responsiveness, despite its more leisurely combat speed.
FreedomFrisbee said:I'm an animation student (2d and 3d), and a programmer. Please feel free to hit me with whatever framerate understanding you have, and whatever framerate understanding you feel I don't have.