This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Arkham Origins. Ps3 or PC?

#31JKatarnPosted 10/26/2013 10:24:58 AM
Giblet_Enjoyer posted...
JKatarn posted...
DaLagga posted...
JKatarn posted...
Please, I might understand if you were talking about your eyes hurting from squinting at small DPI fonts on a high resolution screen, or brightness levels, or from viewing 3D, but from 30 FPS? Your eyes were "literally hurting", lol, then I guess the millions of people who watch 25fps television/film content and play 24-30 fps etc. games must be in "literal" agony, lol. Yes, the control is less than stellar and it's not silky smooth like 60+ fps, but it is completely playable when you take a moment to adjust.


Like I said, it took a good half an hour or so to adjust. But yes, during that time my eyes literally hurt and I had to look away every now and then. Film being 24fps isn't quite as bad because at least the motion blur is good but in video games it simply isn't. Hopefully the don't screw up Dark Souls 2 with a silly 30fps limit and camera movement where it feels like your mouse is just glued to the top of an analog stick.


I have never heard of that happening to anyone, and myself I can jump back and forth between 30/60+ fps console and PC titles without any problems. Also, the motion blur is there in film/television to make jerky/skippy frames in fast action scenes less apparent, not to soothe your eyes. Either you're exaggerating, or you need to get your eyes checked out.

Nah, what he's saying actually makes perfect sense. Fewer FPS=less visual information=your eyes trying to see what they expect to be there, but isn't=eye strain. It's the same principle as trying to read in low light conditions--your eyes are struggling to cope with not being able to see as much as they're used to being able to.


Reading in low-light conditions is more work because your eyes have to do more work to focus on the words with less background light, it's really not the same thing as fewer frames being displayed. Also, our brains are quite good at "filling in the blanks", so other than the obvious control lag and skippy frames it shouldn't cause any eyestrain (provided the monitor/TV is not running at ridiculously low refresh rate).
---
Asus P8Z68-V LE | Core i7 2600K | 8GB G.Skill Ripjaws DDR3 | Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 Windforce OC
PS3 | PS2 | PSP| Wii | 3DS | DS | X-Box 360 | X-Box | NES
#32jgatlabayanPosted 10/26/2013 10:56:21 AM
PC
---
i7 2600k @ 5ghz/ GTX 780 /Asrock z77 Extreme4 /16gb DDR3-1600 / Sandisk Extreme 240gb ssd /2tb hdd/BenQ XL2420T 24in 120hz /Noctua Nh d14/ all major consoles
#33MangorushXIIIPosted 10/26/2013 11:20:51 AM
Get it for PS3, I hear the PC version has all sorts of frame rate problems, bugs and glitches.
#34Madmicky933Posted 10/26/2013 11:28:02 AM
MangorushXIII posted...
Get it for PS3, I hear the PC version has all sorts of frame rate problems, bugs and glitches.


Just because you hear it, it doesn't mean it's true. Like, for example, "Duhurrrrr. You can't play games from the couch with a PC. You can't use a controller on PC. PC has no games."
Obviously all lies.

PC is the way to go with any multiplatform games.
The only way Arkham Origins would have frame rate problems is if you have a really crappy PC. Bugs and glitches, if there really is any, can be fixed with patches.
If there's glitches or bugs, they're most likely on the PS3 as well. You made a very bad choice and spent more for it.
---
Karma... Is a powerful force..
#35AnatomyHorrorPosted 10/26/2013 11:37:12 AM
Your PC should play just about anything on high/ultra settings with 60ish fps.
#36AcquirePosted 10/26/2013 12:14:25 PM
I have an i7 860 at 3.4 Ghz, 8 GB of ram, and a 2 GB gtx 680. I can run the game at 1440p, maximum quality (with physx on high), and fxaa on low. I get average about 50 fps. Tc, your pc should have no problem at 1080p.
---
And if you hear as the warm night falls. The silver sound from a time so strange. Sing to me, sing to me.
#37DaLaggaPosted 10/26/2013 1:09:37 PM
JKatarn posted...
Giblet_Enjoyer posted...
JKatarn posted...
DaLagga posted...
JKatarn posted...
Please, I might understand if you were talking about your eyes hurting from squinting at small DPI fonts on a high resolution screen, or brightness levels, or from viewing 3D, but from 30 FPS? Your eyes were "literally hurting", lol, then I guess the millions of people who watch 25fps television/film content and play 24-30 fps etc. games must be in "literal" agony, lol. Yes, the control is less than stellar and it's not silky smooth like 60+ fps, but it is completely playable when you take a moment to adjust.


Like I said, it took a good half an hour or so to adjust. But yes, during that time my eyes literally hurt and I had to look away every now and then. Film being 24fps isn't quite as bad because at least the motion blur is good but in video games it simply isn't. Hopefully the don't screw up Dark Souls 2 with a silly 30fps limit and camera movement where it feels like your mouse is just glued to the top of an analog stick.


I have never heard of that happening to anyone, and myself I can jump back and forth between 30/60+ fps console and PC titles without any problems. Also, the motion blur is there in film/television to make jerky/skippy frames in fast action scenes less apparent, not to soothe your eyes. Either you're exaggerating, or you need to get your eyes checked out.

Nah, what he's saying actually makes perfect sense. Fewer FPS=less visual information=your eyes trying to see what they expect to be there, but isn't=eye strain. It's the same principle as trying to read in low light conditions--your eyes are struggling to cope with not being able to see as much as they're used to being able to.


Reading in low-light conditions is more work because your eyes have to do more work to focus on the words with less background light, it's really not the same thing as fewer frames being displayed. Also, our brains are quite good at "filling in the blanks", so other than the obvious control lag and skippy frames it shouldn't cause any eyestrain (provided the monitor/TV is not running at ridiculously low refresh rate).


Well, all I can tell you is that it most certainly does cause eye strain until my eyes adjust. I'm not making it up or exaggerating. And yes, our brains can fill in gaps in a low framerate video to an extent, but probably not very well if you haven't been looking at low framerate videos for a while. I had been playing a number of 60fps games for the past few days and switching over to 30fps was indeed miserable and even after adjusting it still looks pretty bad even if it no longer causes eye strain.

I'd go so far as to say that this is true for other visual mediums as well. What would happen if you put people in a theater and had them watch movies running at 48fps and then after a few days you played a film at the standard 24fps? It would probably be painful to adjust to as well.
#38DaLaggaPosted 10/26/2013 1:11:03 PM
MangorushXIII posted...
Get it for PS3, I hear the PC version has all sorts of frame rate problems, bugs and glitches.


The PS3 version runs like crap. I watched some gameplay on youtube and even on there I could see the framerate chugging all the time. IGN or Gamespot (can't remember which) even said in their review that the console versions had a lot of framerate drops.