People who say it's impossible to tell the difference between 30. and 60 fps.

#111Hunter1534(Topic Creator)Posted 12/23/2012 10:35:10 AM
Detha posted...
As a very well-versed player of the Adventure games, no it doesn't.


You're used to it. Generations runs at 30 on consoles and at first it was pissing me off. Then, I got used to it.
---
http://i.imgur.com/YQkTN.jpeg http://www.imgur.com/uXb7o.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/jSMZ1.jpeg
#112DethaPosted 12/23/2012 10:36:05 AM
You're used to it. Generations runs at 30 on consoles and at first it was pissing me off. Then, I got used to it.

Generations isn't Sonic Adventure 1 and 2. They are very different games.
---
i3 2130 @ 3.4 GHz | Team Xtreme 8gb @ 1600 MHz | GTX 460 (768mb) @ 855 MHz / 2000 MHz
#113Hunter1534(Topic Creator)Posted 12/23/2012 10:39:29 AM
Detha posted...
You're used to it. Generations runs at 30 on consoles and at first it was pissing me off. Then, I got used to it.

Generations isn't Sonic Adventure 1 and 2. They are very different games.


Adventure felt like a pain to play at times. I ended up getting used to it. You have a point though. They do play different, but it would've benefited a lot from 60 fps.
---
http://i.imgur.com/YQkTN.jpeg http://www.imgur.com/uXb7o.jpeg
http://www.imgur.com/jSMZ1.jpeg
#114DethaPosted 12/23/2012 10:40:32 AM
They all would, yes.
---
i3 2130 @ 3.4 GHz | Team Xtreme 8gb @ 1600 MHz | GTX 460 (768mb) @ 855 MHz / 2000 MHz
#115Project5BossPosted 12/23/2012 10:40:32 AM
I get what you're saying, but you're devaluing the subjectivity of the game as a whole.

I look at it from a technical aspect. Technically this game is inferior because it offers less. This can be proven. It is a fact that the game offers less than its predecessors.

The mistake people make is in thinking an individual's enjoyment of a game is directly related or proportional to the technical aspect of said game. Which is untrue. Personally I like technical stuff because it keeps me occupied longer. I liked DMC3 and 4 a lot because I like having many different ways to beat the crap out of something in very stylish or brutal ways.

Some people can have fun with DMC2, they can have the time of their lives simply but shooting everything to death with little or no deviation from this tactic.

The only subjective thing is if you find this game enjoyable or not. In the context of this game, it can be compared to other games in the series which then it can be judged objectively bad or good by its technicality in relation to past installments. I think this game is better than 1 in some ways and much better than 2 in almost all ways. But it is worse than 3 and 4 for free.
#116TaizukuPosted 12/23/2012 10:44:48 AM
Project5Boss posted...
I get what you're saying, but you're devaluing the subjectivity of the game as a whole.

I look at it from a technical aspect. Technically this game is inferior because it offers less. This can be proven. It is a fact that the game offers less than its predecessors.

The mistake people make is in thinking an individual's enjoyment of a game is directly related or proportional to the technical aspect of said game. Which is untrue. Personally I like technical stuff because it keeps me occupied longer. I liked DMC3 and 4 a lot because I like having many different ways to beat the crap out of something in very stylish or brutal ways.

Some people can have fun with DMC2, they can have the time of their lives simply but shooting everything to death with little or no deviation from this tactic.

The only subjective thing is if you find this game enjoyable or not. In the context of this game, it can be compared to other games in the series which then it can be judged objectively bad or good by its technicality in relation to past installments. I think this game is better than 1 in some ways and much better than 2 in almost all ways. But it is worse than 3 and 4 for free.


Okay, that's absolutely fine. Completely your opinion, and in some way yes, this game is inferior, that being said, the pros outweigh the cons for me, so I'm looking forward to it.

As I said before, the difference from 30-60 frames isn't enough for me to care unless it's a fighting game.
---
http://i.imgur.com/9eZGg.gif <---Mind****
PSN: MobileFlame
#117RagirothPosted 12/23/2012 10:49:05 AM
Yes i can tell the difference at least somewhat.

But I could not explain how little I care. Would I prefer it in 60 FPS? Of course! But am I gonna piss and moan, on a video game message board FOR A GAME I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ****ING BUY, simply because of it? Hell no.
---
http://z8.invisionfree.com/Final_Chase_Zone/index.php?
PSN-Ragiroth
#118Project5BossPosted 12/23/2012 10:51:25 AM
Taizuku posted...
Project5Boss posted...
I get what you're saying, but you're devaluing the subjectivity of the game as a whole.

I look at it from a technical aspect. Technically this game is inferior because it offers less. This can be proven. It is a fact that the game offers less than its predecessors.

The mistake people make is in thinking an individual's enjoyment of a game is directly related or proportional to the technical aspect of said game. Which is untrue. Personally I like technical stuff because it keeps me occupied longer. I liked DMC3 and 4 a lot because I like having many different ways to beat the crap out of something in very stylish or brutal ways.

Some people can have fun with DMC2, they can have the time of their lives simply but shooting everything to death with little or no deviation from this tactic.

The only subjective thing is if you find this game enjoyable or not. In the context of this game, it can be compared to other games in the series which then it can be judged objectively bad or good by its technicality in relation to past installments. I think this game is better than 1 in some ways and much better than 2 in almost all ways. But it is worse than 3 and 4 for free.


Okay, that's absolutely fine. Completely your opinion, and in some way yes, this game is inferior, that being said, the pros outweigh the cons for me, so I'm looking forward to it.

As I said before, the difference from 30-60 frames isn't enough for me to care unless it's a fighting game.


I can accept that. the 30-60 fps thing as I said is one of many problems. I wanted to see an upgrade to the style system and probably a more fleshed out grab/throw mechanic. Oh well.

Speaking of fighters, are you keen on the new Jojo's Bizarre Adventure game by CC2?
#119Pesmerga255Posted 12/23/2012 10:54:31 AM
Ragiroth posted...
Yes i can tell the difference at least somewhat.

But I could not explain how little I care. Would I prefer it in 60 FPS? Of course! But am I gonna piss and moan, on a video game message board FOR A GAME I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ****ING BUY, simply because of it? Hell no.


Dude, calm down.
---
I JUST KEEP BURNNING LOVE!
#120DuuuDe14Posted 12/23/2012 10:54:56 AM
Ragiroth posted...
Yes i can tell the difference at least somewhat.

But I could not explain how little I care. Would I prefer it in 60 FPS? Of course! But am I gonna piss and moan, on a video game message board FOR A GAME I'M NOT EVEN GOING TO ****ING BUY, simply because of it? Hell no.


Is that all? Well you just lost. Begone
---
The Official Sons of Sparda of all GameFaqs boards.
I shall forever be sitting in Dante's chair. Till the day he returns to us.