Can the framerate actually be smooth?

[iNero]

I played both Far Cry 3 and RDR and had no problems what so ever.  The games were not any less enjoyable for me.

 

Infact both are some of my fav games.  As i've said before in many topics talking about this stuff is:  IT IS ALL UP TO PERSONAL PERFERENCE!

I honestly can't understand how you can't notice it in Far Cry 3, cause it's really quite there. Not constantly, but oh my, the first time in that village before getting a handgun....it's very slow there. I'm with you there about FC3 being a favorite, it was my GOTY last year. RDR can only show some lower framerate when it gets too crowded in a town like Armadillo or whatsoever. For the most part that game is smooth.

The game was pretty smooth for me and Beleive me i like pretty graphics as much as the next guy but it wasn't unplayable.

The game even dips under 20fps quite some times

 

 

[TheGodDamnMaster]

I'm not worried about framerate, I think that'll be fine. I'm just worried about highly-noticeable pop-in since the world is so much bigger and they only have 512MB RAM to work with.

 

For example, you can see where the road textures are still loading, pretty easily.

 

 

Screen-tearing is another concern, it was bad in IV. I have faith that R* will polish the game to the best of their abilities though.

Edited May 10, 2013 by whatsstrength

[Meezarawcks]

Well I was on PS3 and I enjoyed the hell out of it.

[Grand Theft Savage]

Max Payne 3 had a pretty decent framerate. Well, for me, anyways... And to be honest, I don't think GTA V's framerate will be as smooth. You can only push current-gen consoles so far.

[MrcTOtheJ]

Unrelated but TC are you the same MosquitoSmasher from GameFAQ's? If so hey it's me MrctotheJ from the GTAV boards there if you rember me. Seen you around here but didn't put two and two together untill now lol.

 

That said I'm sure there'll be stutters, not many more than RDR or Max Payne 3 which both ran pretty well, whether it has a sub 30FPS or not, I don't know I doubt it. Far Cry 3 looked fine despite it IMO, but I do admit after my upgrade to the HDTV it dosen't look as good as I rember, though Max Payne 3 looks mind blowing as does Skyrim, so I know it's not the PS3's settings lol.

[Meezarawcks]

You would be surprised how you can optomize and tweak things to make them look better even on todays current gen hardware. R* have done there homework and I beleive the game will look brilliant based on the hardware and engine. It will be pulled off well.

[TheQuestfor100Percent]

I am glad I don't notice these things. I loved Far Cry 3 and GTA IV. Sure didn't notice anything graphically hindering my fun.

[CommonSeb]

My bet is that they are gona compensate by lowering the texture resolution abit compared to Red Dead.

The resolution has been mentioned in some reviews as being a bit blurry.

 

That dont worry me much though cause they will make up for it with atmosphere and lighting.

And also it is no problem cause that will make it only that much more exciting when

the PC version comes. In addition to mouse and keyboard.

It remains to be seen how the final build will be, but i really wouldn't mind a port for the next-gen consoles sooner than later, i'll simply buy a second copy, no problem at all. No PC gaming for me. But you'd think it should be fine...because this is GTA, they got RAGE pretty much nailed down, this is their last current-gen game, they are not gonna ruin it by having a horrible-ass framerate.

Im no marketing expert but to me it would seem like releasing a next gen version simultaneously with the PC

version would be a no-brainer.

 

It's just more oppertunities for income. Can't be expensive for R* to amp up the graphics and shove the thing

over on a blue-ray disk.

 

 

[Hilldog39]

My bet is that they are gona compensate by lowering the texture resolution abit compared to Red Dead.

The resolution has been mentioned in some reviews as being a bit blurry.

 

That dont worry me much though cause they will make up for it with atmosphere and lighting.

And also it is no problem cause that will make it only that much more exciting when

the PC version comes. In addition to mouse and keyboard.

It remains to be seen how the final build will be, but i really wouldn't mind a port for the next-gen consoles sooner than later, i'll simply buy a second copy, no problem at all. No PC gaming for me. But you'd think it should be fine...because this is GTA, they got RAGE pretty much nailed down, this is their last current-gen game, they are not gonna ruin it by having a horrible-ass framerate.

Im no marketing expert but to me it would seem like releasing a next gen version simultaneously with the PC

version would be a no-brainer.

 

It's just more oppertunities for income. Can't be expensive for R* to amp up the graphics and shove the thing

over on a blue-ray disk.

plus seeing the next gen consoles are built closer to a pc, porting from a pc shouldn't be too difficult

[lazloisdavrock]

Every GTA game has low framerate. I don't think we can escape from that.

On console atleast

[iNero]

If there will be a Next Gen Versio , the PC Version would be released even later.

They wont port it two 3 different systems at the same time. And also they would distribout it the same way:

 

Consoles first, then PC. And that means next gens before PC

[Mista J]

I never got lag on RDR while in towns, only got lag in Tall Trees when I was in the snowy areas. Even then it wasn't making the game unplayable, but you can still see the slight delay on the screen.

[CryptReaperDorian]

Frame rate is a problem in just about every GTA game. However, here's the thing. If you're like me and can enjoy a sandbox game developed by Bethesda Game Studios, then the stutters you get from a GTA game won't completely ruin your experience.

[ChocoFrosty]

This is why I wish 360 and PS3 provided an option to over-clock the CPU and allow a higher frame rate.

 

I did this on my PSP back when I played GTA LCS and it doubled the frame rate. It made the game look amazing (and more fun to play).

[MrP4nc4ke]

Sometimes I'm jealous to those people who just can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps and who are fine playing a game at 20 fps!!! To me GTA IV on PS3 was only barely playable and I certainly hope that this time R* will concentrate more on delivering smooth gameplay experience than pretty screenshots.

 

FPS > other visuals

 

 

[d3ex2]

 

Sometimes I'm jealous to those people who just can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps and who are fine playing a game at 20 fps!!! To me GTA IV on PS3 was only barely playable and I certainly hope that this time R* will concentrate more on delivering smooth gameplay experience than pretty screenshots.

 

FPS > other visuals

If someone can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps they gotta go get a new pair of eyes. I can tell the difference easily but I own a PS3. It's as simple as this: the difference doesn't bother me. I'm happy with 25-30fps in games. our TV's in the UK only broadcast at ~24fps so we're used to that frame rate. I don't feel the need to have everything at 60fps just to enjoy it.

[Mr. Scratch]

 

Screen-tearing is another concern, it was bad in IV. I have faith that R* will polish the game to the best of their abilities though.

That's bs,IV and RDR had no screen-tearing at all.

[d3ex2]

When game informer seen the game they said it had some frame rate issues but that it would be fixed by release. That was 7 months ago. I don't recall anybody saying anything about frame rate in the recent previews and if they did there's still 4 months left to go.

 

Maybe that's why they delayed the game, to just optimise and polish it all up so it runs well. I doubt it'll be as bad as IV. Keep in mind that IV is over 5 years old and it was their first open world game on the hardware of this generation. RAGE will be more efficient now. What we get will be the best that Rockstar can do I'll be happy with that. IF there is any issues with performance after release then I'm sure Rockstar will work their asses off to fix it for us.

[ramsy66]

They are going to have made sacrifices to make sure the game runs smoothly on consoles. As people have already said, they will have lowered texture resolutions, and things like that. But they will have been intelligent about it - they know what they're doing. The game will run perfectly fine, and it will look absolutely stunning, but it is going to have little things (texture pop-in, low-res textures etc.) that they will have had to sacrifice for the sake of decent performance.

[nigelhere9901]

Every GTA game has low framerate. I don't think we can escape from that.

actually not... III, VC and SA all had a proper framerate. some hick ups sometimes but only like a second and almost no slow downs when chased by police.

 

IV was the first GTA on this Gen and the framerate was pretty bad. RDR had a proper framerate again. But from the scale of V i doubt it will be smooth this time around

Wrong.

 

Almost every GTA has suffered from imperfections on frame rates, Frame Rate issues on console games are inevitable.

[MrcTOtheJ]

Sometimes I'm jealous to those people who just can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps and who are fine playing a game at 20 fps!!! To me GTA IV on PS3 was only barely playable and I certainly hope that this time R* will concentrate more on delivering smooth gameplay experience than pretty screenshots.

 

FPS > other visuals

If someone can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps they gotta go get a new pair of eyes. I can tell the difference easily but I own a PS3. It's as simple as this: the difference doesn't bother me. I'm happy with 25-30fps in games. our TV's in the UK only broadcast at ~24fps so we're used to that frame rate. I don't feel the need to have everything at 60fps just to enjoy it.

Exactly, it just dosen't bug me to much, now if I drop into a major lag slump into the low sub 10's (Looking at you New Vegas I love you but still) then yeah it bugs me but that's diffrent from a constant FPS rate.

 

Now while it dosen't bug me with games at all because it's what I'm used to it does bug me with TV and movies.

[DlZZEE]

 

Every GTA game has low framerate. I don't think we can escape from that.

actually not... III, VC and SA all had a proper framerate. some hick ups sometimes but only like a second and almost no slow downs when chased by police.

 

IV was the first GTA on this Gen and the framerate was pretty bad. RDR had a proper framerate again. But from the scale of V i doubt it will be smooth this time around

Wrong.

 

Almost every GTA has suffered from imperfections on frame rates, Frame Rate issues on console games are inevitable.

True dat, I remember San Andreas mission where you had to escape from burning building and it was running like at 10 FPS. Flames overall kills the framerate in any game.

[kudoboi]

Sometimes I'm jealous to those people who just can't tell the difference between 30fps and 60fps and who are fine playing a game at 20 fps!!! To me GTA IV on PS3 was only barely playable and I certainly hope that this time R* will concentrate more on delivering smooth gameplay experience than pretty screenshots.

 

FPS > other visuals

i can't even handle playing a game at 30FPS.

[MosquitoSmasher]

I played both Far Cry 3 and RDR and had no problems what so ever.  The games were not any less enjoyable for me.

 

Infact both are some of my fav games.  As i've said before in many topics talking about this stuff is:  IT IS ALL UP TO PERSONAL PERFERENCE!

I honestly can't understand how you can't notice it in Far Cry 3, cause it's really quite there. Not constantly, but oh my, the first time in that village before getting a handgun....it's very slow there. I'm with you there about FC3 being a favorite, it was my GOTY last year. RDR can only show some lower framerate when it gets too crowded in a town like Armadillo or whatsoever. For the most part that game is smooth.

The game was pretty smooth for me and Beleive me i like pretty graphics as much as the next guy but it wasn't unplayable.

The game even dips under 20fps quite some times

 

 

Holy crap, at PS3 it goes even worse than 360. Boy am i now extra glad that i bought it for my 360 and not PS3. The game had a great thing going for itself that made me forget and accept the framerate, the world was full of live, animals, missions to do, exploration and so on. So even if GTA V has a similar framerate, but i doubt that, but even if so...i'll accept it and soon don't even notice it anymore because i get so immersed.

[Raavi]

I played both Far Cry 3 and RDR and had no problems what so ever.  The games were not any less enjoyable for me.

 

Infact both are some of my fav games.  As i've said before in many topics talking about this stuff is:  IT IS ALL UP TO PERSONAL PERFERENCE!

I honestly can't understand how you can't notice it in Far Cry 3, cause it's really quite there. Not constantly, but oh my, the first time in that village before getting a handgun....it's very slow there. I'm with you there about FC3 being a favorite, it was my GOTY last year. RDR can only show some lower framerate when it gets too crowded in a town like Armadillo or whatsoever. For the most part that game is smooth.

The game was pretty smooth for me and Beleive me i like pretty graphics as much as the next guy but it wasn't unplayable.

The game even dips under 20fps quite some times

 

Holy crap, at PS3 it goes even worse than 360. Boy am i now extra glad that i bought it for my 360 and not PS3. The game had a great thing going for itself that made me forget and accept the framerate, the world was full of live, animals, missions to do, exploration and so on. So even if GTA V has a similar framerate, but i doubt that, but even if so...i'll accept it and soon don't even notice it anymore because i get so immersed.

I think you should not pay that much attention to the frame rate. I have the game for PS3 and it works fine. As long as it doesn't go to flipbook speeds I don't have any problem with playing with lower framerate. What's all the fuss about framerate anyway?

[iNero]

Ofcourse people should pay attention to it. In 3rd person less than FPS but still it effects the aiming in a obvious way. Apart from that it is a lot harder to recognize everything on the screen as u have less pictures per second. And playing it longer than an hour and my eyey start to hurt...

[gta5freemode4eva]

20-30 fps is what we'll get (imo) and I'm cool with it. I've played games on consoles and PC's (overclocked and under spec) so I've seen plenty. 25fps (average for what I'm talking about) is not the smoothest looking/running game but it's by far not the jerkiest either. I notice the FPS a LOT more when on a PC as to when I'm on a console so I really don't think we should worry. RDR was fine for me (2008 xbox still going strong today) as was GTA4, MP3, BF3 etc etc. We're going to be immersed in action and even if the frame rate does drop it'll be your own judgement that brings you out of the environment not the games' fps. If your looking for faults/hang-ups then you WILL find them. Give and take guys. Take everything with a pinch of salt and it'll be sweet (no pun intended). This game will rock and you can't let small errors get in the way of the triumphs.

[Raavi]

Ofcourse people should pay attention to it. In 3rd person less than FPS but still it effects the aiming in a obvious way. Apart from that it is a lot harder to recognize everything on the screen as u have less pictures per second. And playing it longer than an hour and my eyey start to hurt...

Well I'm sorry your eyey suffer from a game's framerate. But it is one or the other; or you get a game with almost nothing to do with smooth framerate and amazing graphics. Or framerate takes the backseat, if you will.

 

[iNero]

Ofcourse people should pay attention to it. In 3rd person less than FPS but still it effects  the aiming in a obvious way. Apart from that it is a lot harder to recognize everything on the screen as u have less pictures per second. And playing it longer than an hour and my eyey start to hurt...

Well I'm sorry your eyey suffer from a game's framerate. But it is one or the other; or you get a game with almost nothing to do with smooth framerate and amazing graphics. Or framerate takes the backseat, if you will.

There are alot of people in this thread alone who have the same problem with this game....

[MrP4nc4ke]

 

20-30 fps is what we'll get (imo) and I'm cool with it. I've played games on consoles and PC's (overclocked and under spec) so I've seen plenty.  25fps (average for what I'm talking about) is not the smoothest looking/running game but it's by far not the jerkiest either.  I notice the FPS a LOT more when on a PC as to when I'm on a console so I really don't think we should worry.  RDR was fine for me (2008 xbox still going strong today) as was GTA4, MP3, BF3 etc etc. We're going to be immersed in action and even if the frame rate does drop it'll be your own judgement that brings you out of the environment not the games' fps.  If your looking for faults/hang-ups then you WILL find them. Give and take guys. Take everything with a pinch of salt and it'll be sweet (no pun intended).  This game will rock and you can't let small errors get in the way of the triumphs.

Arrgh! So I should just interpolate the missing frames in my head to get a good gaming experience? Sorry, but I'm unable to do that. Maybe my brain power is insufficient.

 

GTA V has a good chance of becoming a true masterpiece. Really - I'm talking best-game-ever type sh*t. I am super excited about the game! But nevertheless, FPS dropping around 20 and below WILL get in the way of me enjoying the game - no matter how much salt I eat on the side. Imagine during an incredible shoot out, in the middle of explosions, you try to aim at your enemies but it becomes much harder when the game turns into a slide show. Not fun. Fingers crossed for R* realizing this.