Readers Feature

[Maryokutai]

DK definitely isn't dead, I suspect its somewhat wonky release schedule is due to the fact that they historically don't develop those games in-house in Japan, and they don't want someone like Retro to be just the DK studio.

 

Advance Wars had its chance for a comeback but Putin unfortunately ruined that. The remake was super good though and if nothing else I would have loved to see Days of Ruin get the same treatment. I think a proper new game is off the table at this time, unfortunately. I wouldn't want it to become an RTS though, don't really see why that would benefit the series.

 

Speaking of horrible suggestions, I'll make sure to quickly forget what I read there about F-Zero. The problem with this IP is likely that a) it sells like garbage and b) GX is one of the best videogames ever made. Maybe there's an element of pride involved that prevents them from going back to it considering SEGA beat them at their own game. In any case, I'd be more than fine with them just remastering/remaking GX. I presume Switch 2 will have analogue shoulder buttons, so there's no real hardware-hiccup that might stop it from being just as good as the original.

 

I have no real opinion about the others, but another one I'd like to see come back is Golden Sun. There's really no other RPG out there with such a strong focus on puzzles that intertwine with the combat capabilities of its characters. I think a Nintendo-spin on the HD-2D style would work rather well for this series, it wouldn't need to be some AAA project.

[Nag]

 

Quote

A reader is upset Rise Of The Rōnin is being criticised for its graphics but Dragon’s Dogma 2 is getting away with its performance issues.

 

The much anticipated action role-playing game Dragon’s Dogma 2 is finally here. Like many others who had played the first one, I had been waiting for a sequel for over a decade. Everything leading up to the release for the sequel seemed good. Previews were positive and so were reviews and then the game released…

 

All the positivity suddenly went away as players reported the terrible performance issues, particularly on PC. Frequent crashing in-game to atrocious frame rate drops especially in towns. There’s been people reporting frame rate drops to 15-20, which is completely unacceptable for an AAA next gen title.

 

The archaic save system is also a strange thing. Some fans yell, ‘It was in the first game’ but that doesn’t make it good, just as microtransactions being in other single-player Capcom games don’t justify their inclusion in Dragon’s Dogma 2. The microtransactions are also another source of negatively that surrounded the game.

 

For me though, the final nail in the coffin was the inability to start a new game naturally and the issues that proceeded with it. So, after rushing into the game with a generic character, skipping cut scenes, tutorials, and practically everything else to get to the open world and see if my PC could run the game smoothly in that setting, I discover there’s no ability start a new game.

 

There’s a workaround where you can delete your saves in the Steam folder and then disable cloud saves so they don’t get restored and, sure, that worked at first and I started a new save. Everything was going smoothly until I saved and exited. When I later resumed playing, that new save was deleted and my old save had been restored. Apparently, Capcom links saves to their server, so this is an issue others have experienced too, losing hours of progress.

 

I managed to convince Steam to give me a refund despite the fact I had played past two hours. This combined with the intense frame rate drops I experienced in towns, and occasionally in the open world, was all the convincing I needed to refund and wait for Capcom to patch the game.

 

Honestly, Dragon’s Dogma 2 deserves the negative user reviews it’s getting so far. The optimisation and performance is unacceptable. Its rival game, Rise Of The Rōnin is being criticised for having poorer graphics or ’PS3 graphics’ as some have said. Meanwhile, Dragon’s Dogma 2 releases in such a terrible state, with subpar PlayStation 3 style performance and unnecessary microtransactions and this doesn’t impact the critic review scores it received.

 

With all the recent discussions about the cost of AAA game development, I think it’s unfair Rise Of The Rōnin is even criticised for its graphics, when players for the last few months have been saying gameplay and performance matter more and they’ll happily take that over graphics if it leads to cheaper game development.

 

Dragon’s Dogma 2, meanwhile, is simply another example of the problem with modern AAA gaming: intense focus on graphics with subpar performance that will be patched months later, unnecessary microtransactions thrown in, and strange design decisions that simply do not respect the player.

 

That’s why I’m happy to see all the negative user reviews for this game, calling it out on these issues, and no amount of senseless arguments, whataboutism or denials from some fans can ever justify these issues that even Capcom have recognised and said they will be fixing (the performance and new game save).

 

‘Well, I’m enjoying the game’, some reply. Well, that’s good. However, for me and others, Dragon’s Dogma 2 is only good for a bargain bin sale, months down the line, when it’s finally patched. Undoubtedly, some people probably won’t even buy it then, as new games will have come along. The player numbers on Steam are above 200,000 but it should probably be noted that, if not for all the issues, it would probably have been much higher. Capcom has undoubtedly messed up the launch.

 

While there's an argument to be made against review parity (there generally isn't any) this just sounds like he doesn't like the game.

[one-armed dwarf]

15-20FPS in a modern game is definitely unplayable, if that's what he was getting. There's too much visual complexity in games now for a framerate like that to be playable

 

Dogma 2 is definitely the heaviest game I've ever tired to run. The graphics settings don't scale, DLSS doesn't improve performance. Noticed it when it was running at around 44FPS, that changing DLSS to performance kept it at the same level, even when GPU bound. 44fps might sound fine, and it's perfectly playable, but that's on a monster graphics card. So imagine it on something else.

 

I do think now that Capcom just kinda pushed this one out to fit in a fiscal quarter. 

[Nag]

I can't really comment on PC talk... but surely they could turn some shit down or off to get it running better (or upgrade their PC... isn't that the "beauty" of that system?)

 

Console players get ragged on routinely for accepting substandard performance and that's kind've something baked in now but all I ever read online is how PC games come with massive amounts of problems that if you can't brute force your way past them you're kind've fucked.

[one-armed dwarf]

Well that's my point, turning the scaling option down to relieve performance didn't actually work. There's something technically fucked up about the game, DLSS is the main thing that gets used to resolve this. The fact that it's not doing this feels like a bug more than anything else, this is the first RE engine title with DLSS I think. RE4 did not have it

 

There's also other things going on which aren't scalable on any system, the CPU usage in towns. You can't really turn NPCs off, apparently Capcom's solution here was to include even more NPC popin to reduce that load but it's not a setting available to users.

 

Generally speaking though, this type of release is not typical of PC. I think we had a period there during the pandemic where everything was being released with shader stutter but i've not seen this as much of an issue recently (and when it is an issue, it impacts everyone regardless of hardware). Also the scalability of older games is awesome, automatic remasters. 

 

But Capcom unfortunately Cyberpunked this release, I was busy making excuses for them ahead of time in the news thread and Imma take that back now. The fucked this one up

 

On the subject of reviews, I suspect many PC game reviews are done on 4080s/4090s and people aren't inclined to notice it as much

[Nag]

I'll just thank my lucky stars for VRR and a compatible display then as (and I'm not telling porkies here) the experience has been pretty nice on Series X to the point where I've left the unlocked framerate on even with the capped option available. 

 

Personally I think there's a bigger problem in regards to relying on reviews for games as there just way too much personal taste involved imo... you know that they'll be reviews of the next Call of Duty game declaring it "just more of the same" whereas that same site will declare the next Gran Turismo the second coming of Christ even though it's literally more of the same.

[Maf]

I think DD2 and Ronin should both be criticised for their graphics/performance, but for different reasons. DD2 is poorly built, kind of especially on PC (although PC versions are harder to build for because of the wide range of PC’s so there’s some leniency there, but they should still have done a better job)

 

Where as Ronin has less of an excuse because it’s only on one platform (for now) and is no way near in the same league as other PS5 exclusives and such. Not being 1st party there’s going to be differences because of resources etc, but it’s still a very underwhelming game just graphically as well as performance

 

I think the other thing, which is not a good excuse at launch, but DD2 has a good chance of being fixed where as Ronin, I suspect that’s just what it’s going to be

 

Also just quick, VRR won’t do anything for DD2 on console, the frame rate doesn’t get high enough for it to take effect. I get the sense from this and previous posts is you’re just not very sensitive/bothered about FPS performance @Nag which is not a knock, it just comes across that way 👍

 

I enjoy higher frame rate if possible but I can adjust pretty easily and don’t mind games being 30fps or below. I think people make bigger deal out of that than necessary - sometimes

 

The thing about upgrading PC to solve problems, DD2 doesn’t seem like a hardware problem it’s like a development problem. The game is just not made very well (especially on PC)

 

Also who the fuck is ragging on console players? That’s like rich kid elitist shit. PC gaming is great for high performance and customising an experience, but the drawback to both is having specific problems that are difficult to solve and lack of reliability. The more options/configurations the more chance for problems. Whereas if the console game does not perform well, at least you can be rest assured it’s not performing well for everybody and it’s not your system

 

The last thing as an add on which is funny to me is most people have been playing games at 30fps their entire life and never thought about it. Better performance is better, but the idea that 30fps games are bad when that’s been the experience for the huge majority of console games/gamers in general is - in some cases - people trying to front because DF told them so or are letting the numbers ruin the fun of games

 

At the same time DD2 and Ronin could both be better. It’s not to say they’re in a state where you can’t play them or have fun with them or should let other people complaining about numbers ruin your fun with your games.
 

But, they could be better. both is true at the same time 

[one-armed dwarf]

I go back and forth on the bit about 30fps their whole life. Like if you take an old action game and play it at 30, then take something recent like the Stellar Blade demo and set that to its 30fps mode, there's just a ton more detail that has to be interpreted but at a lower refresh. I've found myself more and more trying to play action games like Final Fantasy on their 30 modes and with XVI in particular I actually can't tell what's going on, no matter how long I stay in that mode. The combat is invisible. I know Andy said similar in the thread we have here. Too many pixels, too flickery, constant explosions and things lighting up with huge detail

 

But if you go back and play FFX on 30fps mode, it would probably feel smoother than many modern 60fps games

[Nag]

10 minutes ago, Maf said:

Also just quick, VRR won’t do anything for DD2 on console, the frame rate doesn’t get high enough for it to take effect.

 

That's true for PS5 but not Series X.👍

[HandsomeDead]

I dunno about DD2 overall but I'm pretty sure early review code didn't show any signs of the MTXs being there.  I know quite a few Japanese publishers have had consumables available to buy for a long time but it's odd they've always been willing to risk that goodwill for something I can't imagine getting bought a lot.

 

As for Ronin, like, this is just annoying.  I think Sony are cultivating such a shitty audience.  Team Ninja are clearly establishing that they make a certain standard of game.  Even in recent years they did that Final Fantasy game, Wo Long and even Nioh 2 wasn't that long ago.  Surely they must know what they're getting.  They're not gonna turn into a prestige studio just because they have some deal with Sony, we don't know the terms of the deal.

It's okay for games to be a bit messy, especially one where they aren't taking 5 years to make them.

[mfnick]

17 minutes ago, one-armed dwarf said:

there's just a ton more detail that has to be interpreted but at a lower refresh.

You know, this might be a big part of it. I never used to have a problem with 30fps (visually anyway, always preferred the feel of 60fps) but I think this, combined with the faster response time of modern tvs - especially OLED just makes this an issue I didn’t have before. 
 

I keep seeing snarky memes about people complaining about 30fps when back in PS1 days it would barely even hit that. But this detail thing and the fact CRTs hid that motion stuff so much better it makes that point invalid. 
 

Not all 30fps games are made equal either. Take Forza Horizon 5 - I can happily play that at 30 without issue. It’s still noticeable but severely reduced. Whereas something like Spiderman 2 I just couldn’t at all. 
 

But at the same time I don’t know if it’s something that’s come with age or being more aware of it in general but I’m a lot more sensitive to frame stutter even just during Tv programmes and especially films now. Even on my friends Sky Glass or sisters normal LED TV I can still see severe stutter during panning shots that up until the last 6 years or so I never saw. Maybe a 4k thing with the extra detail still as my old spare room 1080p Samsung looks fine to me during motion? Also maybe a screen size thing - gone from 32” being the biggest screen to 55-65” depending where I am. 
 

Anyway, sorry to derail. Just @one-armed dwarfcane up with a really interesting point for me.

 

Going back to the original post, I think it simply comes down to how much you like a game to whether you overlook things which would create issues for you in another game. If the sum of the package of something like DD2 clicks with you more and you’re just more into what it’s doing than Ronin which you may already be bouncing off because it’s just not as much for you then the “smaller” issues like performance can become more frustrating and a far bigger deal. Plus same games different things matter more - 60fps is more important in an action game than a RPG. Graphics matter more in something like a racing game than it does in day a RTS. We all approach different games with different mindsets so parity can’t really ever be a thing unless they’re basically the exact same game and genre to start with. Easier to get parity with GT7 and FM7 for example.

[Maryokutai]

There were a ton of 60fps games on DC/PS2/GC/Xbox, it's just the talk around framerates that is relatively new, and while I really respect DF for what they do because they themselves look at all this stuff in a very analytical, objective manner, their audience sometimes isn't, and at that point their usually good content is ammunition for fanboy wars.

 

I do agree though that Ronin is getting unfairly bashed for its visuals while everything around it is tipping over due to production costs and the necessary manpower involved. It looks absolutely fine. A studio with better tech could probably have build something slightly prettier in a similar timeframe, but going after that game because it looks how it looks is part of the problem the industry is currently facing. 

 

DD2 shouldn't have come out the way it did, pretty much proven by Capcom themselves when the first patch released not two weeks after launch. Thankfully it seemingly didn't have too much of an impact on its sales, but that story could have gone either way and this was very much a make or break release for that IP. Right now I can imagine them maybe doing a 3 at some point but if the console versions were as busted as the PC release this would have been it for DD.

[mfnick]

28 minutes ago, Nag said:

 

That's true for PS5 but not Series X.👍

 Just to back Nag up here too as I was under the impression VRR only works above 45ish FPS but I watched a video - think it was Digital Foundry - and they said setting you the SX to 120hz with VRR definitely improved things. Fuck knows how but definitely seen at least one video saying this. 

[Nag]

2 minutes ago, mfnick said:

setting you the SX to 120hz with VRR

 

Which is what I use... so presumably it's doing something... I've already mentioned in the DD2 thread that the hit is still noticeable in densely populated areas though.

[DANGERMAN]

I think there's definitely a discrepancy between which games get called out for their performance etc, and it's always been that way, and we're all guilty of it. Fallout 3 was straight up broken at various points on 360, and the 360 was the better console port, I don't remember reviews mentioning it. It gets talked about now but not then. 

 

Personally I'd rather a game look a bit old but run well if that's the choice. That's not to say I haven't turned the occasional blind eye to dodgy performance in a game I like. 

 

On the PC port thing. From mid 360/PS3 until the start of this generation PC was 100% the way to go if you had the choice. Cheap pcs were giving better performance that the consoles, and the broken Arkham Knight examples were notable because they were so rare. 

 

This last few years I've hesitated on buying pc games at launch just in case it's fucked. I assumed it'd come down to the NVMe drives in the consoles, but that's not really mattered at all, it seems to largely be down to developers not wanting to go back to shader caching, or weird choices with traversal loads. It's odd, PC is probably the 2nd biggest sku for a lot of games now, so not spending the time on it just seems like a really good way to get a load of negative attention for your game 

[Maf]

I just read this by coincidence 

 

 

This guy is a game developer. This links to a tiny thread which has the whole example, I’m just posting the one tweet 

 

I really think for the large majority, especially if you move the time scale the large majority of gamers today grew up on X360, ignorance was bliss. 
 

I really think the importance of tech talk today has blown up just because the information is out there. Which is good. Education/knowledge is good. But now so many more people are aware of it there’s this negative side effect where, well, now I know the game isn’t”optimal” it’s not good enough. Even though when they never heard of frame rates it didn’t bother them at all

 

I’m not really trying to make a point, other than I really think people only put so much focus on this stuff now because they know about it. Which is neither good nor bad. 
 

I’m like the guy in the tweet. I didn’t know about any of this stuff until late X360 era and people were talking about FPS because every late 360 game had bad frame rate then reviews starting talking about it

 

And to what @DANGERMAN saying about reviews not mentioning bad tech info. Again I believe large majority of reviewers just didn’t know about it, or understand it well enough to talk about.
 

I think only the last 2 generations or so with the rise of DF has bought this information to so many people, in the industry and without, that now it’s a talking point. And even then places like IGN have their own “specialists” to talk about it and not in the main reviews because they’re still not the ones in the know. 

 

For me, I really like knowing more about games/tech/design how they work so I’m glad I do know now and the info is out there. But I won’t let it ruin games for me. I was playing 3DS a few weeks ago, and for the first 15 minutes I was like damn how blurry. Was it always like this? After an hour I had completely forgot about it 

 

Anyway. I just saw this tweet and it reminded me of this conversation 

 

EDIT: The other thing I forgot to say, is I think there are people out there that still don’t really know the difference in FPS and stuff. But because the data is out there they act like they know when, if you put them down in front of the game, they couldn’t tell the differences 

[mfnick]

It did used to get mentioned though. I specifically remember reading PS2 mags & it being a positive when a game was targeting 60fps. They would definitely bring it up and would say it was a shame when certain games were at a lower frame rate. 
 

During the 16-32 bit era, in those mags they constantly brought up the difference between PAL 50 and NTSC 60. It was very noticeable if you ever experienced it. Sure it wasn’t such a big deal, but we also didn’t have social media back then but bet it would have been. Especially if games weee giving performance and graphic options back then like they do now on console. Almost every game basically tells you it’s been compromised on start up these days with that option making it more well known. 
 

& again it’s not a fair comparison. CRTs and even old HD LCD hid the frame rate issues much better than todays tvs. Especially regards to motion. Which is what I struggle with most. As Dwarf mentioned the extra detail and resolution really make these problems far more pronounced too.

30fps isn’t unplayable but it absolutely hurts the experience for me. And it can make me have to take a break from playing particular games because that stutter is all I can see when moving the camera. Not something I ever experienced with those old 32bit games. 

[Maf]

I’m saying even if mags said this game is 30/60, most people would just read it without understanding it, just like today except now a man on video tells them 

[one-armed dwarf]

Other than it's slight camera pauses on screen change, there's nothing really that choppy about RE2 imo. I think a lot of stuff should be contextualised better here cause that generation of games was a groundbreaking one, pushing the medium forward, and so it's much easier to accept that there were titles that didn't run well. It was all very new. Even now I don't really have an issue with the fact that these old 3D games run the way that they do cause imo it's clearly all justified by what they were doing at the time

 

PS2-etc gen had tons of games which ran great, however, while you go into the gen after and stuff often ran worse. Like you would play Assassin's Creed on PS3 and it had tons of screen tearing and judder and was just generally a pretty shit feeling experience. It was easy to tell. 360 was a lot better at least.

 

The PAL NTSC stuff is being mentioned, I became familiar with that first through Capcom games, cause DMC1 was slowed down and had a crushed aspect ratio. But if you left it on the title screen you would see an FMV of the 'real' game, all fast and shit. You'd read later on that it ran at a 16.6% higher speed and framerate on NTSC regions. Fucked up shit. But it was even worse before then, cause at least by PS2 some companies were making more of an effort. 

 

I think it's selling people short to say that they would not notice the difference without it being told to them. Before I knew what framerate was I definitely noticed that Snake Eater ran like half as smoothly as Sons of Liberty. 

[Maf]

4 minutes ago, one-armed dwarf said:

 

I think it's selling people short to say that they would not notice the difference without it being told to them. Before I knew what framerate was I definitely noticed that Snake Eater ran like half as smoothly as Sons of Liberty. 

I’ve played these games a tonne of times and had no idea until you just said it 

 

When I grew up reading mags and talking to people about games, anecdotal I get it, this never came up. When I argued with people about what game was better or what console was better, never did tech talk come in to it. It was just listing game names

 

I also remember mega drive games and such having having the 50hz/60hz option and never understanding it or being able to tell the difference. Although I guess in hindsight my TV was never 60hz capable so that could be why