Tidbits from London showing

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
Bethesda PR man Pete Hines is touring Europe with the new demo, so expect a lot of European previews with exactly the same info as the American ones soon. Paris was hit last week, and today it was London's turn. The (pretty good) newsblog videogaming247 rushed home with their notes to type out some factoids from a quick Q&A with Pete Hines. On console:<blockquote>“The 360 is our lead development platform, so we got it working on that one first,” he said. I mean, we develop them all simultaneously, but one of them’s got to be the lead, so it was 360.”

The choice was made more by the timing of the console’s release than anything else, Hines added.

“We had a year’s head start on the 360 because it came out a year earlier, so we had final dev hardware to work with earlier on than we did with PS3,” he said. “But as this point all three of them are pretty much on par. The goal is that, if I get three versions in here and hide the console or PC and just had them running on the screen, that you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.”</blockquote>On framerate:<blockquote>“Thirty frames a second is our goal, so it’s running at 30 frames a second and it’s nice and smooth,” he said, talking of the PC version.

“Yeah, that’s the goal,” he added, when asked if the 30FPS target was the same for Xbox 360 and PS3.</blockquote>On PC specs:<blockquote>“The goal is that it’s similar to what Oblivion was for its time,” he said. “So, it’s not Crysis but it’s not solitary, and hopefully it’s as scalable as possible. So if you’ve got a shit-hot machine and you’ve got all the latest video cards, and whatnot, then it’ll look amazing, but if you’ve got a standard gaming rig then it still runs good.”

In terms of a final PC spec for the game, Hines said it was still too early in the development cycle to be able to give a definite list.</blockquote>Edit in (apparently videogaming247 is a big of fragmentary coverage): On DLCs.<blockquote>“Given how successful it was for us on Oblivion, certainly it’s a given that we’ll look into it and what we’d like to do,” he said, talking of extra content for the anticipated post-apocalyptic RPG.

“But I can’t tell you when, I can’t tell you what it would be, or what it would look like. Will it be bigger stuff like Knights of the Nine or smaller stuff? We’ve no idea. We’ll let folks know once we get down the road.”</blockquote>Edit (ok they're starting to annoy me a bit now, why not just put all this in one post?): On Dogmeat.<blockquote>What happens if he dies?

“Dead,” said Hines.

Is there another dog?

“Nope. One dog. Be careful.”

Dogmeat can be sent to find ammo, food, stimpacks, and so on, but if you don’t think about what you’re doing with him he’s not going to last very long, from the sound of it.

“So obviously you have to be careful about where you send him foraging for stuff,” said Hines. “If you’re attacking a Raider camp, or something, and you’re running low on ammo and you say, ‘Go find me ammo,’ and he goes running through a bunch of Raiders, they can shoot and kill him while he tries to do what you told him. So you’ve got to be smart about where you send him off.”

Luckily, our canine friend isn’t necessary to the plot.

“It’s an homage to the original game to have a memorable dog that you can have with you, and it’s a way to give you a companion.”</blockquote>Wow, an NPC that dies and stays dead. What a friggin' novel concept.
 
Brother None said:
“We had a year’s head start on the 360 because it came out a year earlier, so we had final dev hardware to work with earlier on than we did with PS3,” he said. “But as this point all three of them are pretty much on par. The goal is that, if I get three versions in here and hide the console or PC and just had them running on the screen, that you wouldn’t be able to tell the difference.”

This confuses me.

Don't both the PS3 and the average high-end PC have way, way better capabilities than the Xbox 360? Are they being tuned down to Xbox 360 numbers?

For PC, that's ok as long as they also means the requirements aren't as steep as Oblivion's, but that's pretty mean towards the PS3 users.
 
I've found that many ports get the short end of the stick when it comes graphically, because they design the game to adhere to the Xbox 360 hardware capabilities and then just gimp the port in order to keep that 'balance'.

Xbox users were upset upon the PC release of Halo, because it hit their head very hard against the pavement, in terms of resolution, texture quality, model complexity, etc.

So yes, it's unfair to both PS3 and PC users that we're getting a gimped port of an Xbox 360 game.
 
It's either that, or it's the 360 users that are really getting a potentially worse graphic-detail-wise version.
 
The PS3 vs Xbox 360 power power difference from my understanding isn't much if at all. The Cell processor is technically more powerful but is a different beast entirely compared to the Xbox and PC processors and it has its advantages and also disadvantages. Also afaik the xbox has a better GPU and marginally more ram (and its OS also requires less ram) all in all the PS3 is supposedly slightly superior tech wise but so far the graphical difference is minimal or perhaps even slightly in the Xbox's favour. Even comparing the better looking games from each platform your not going to see one blowing the other out of the water (Mass Effect, Gears of War etc vs UT3, Uncharted etc)

Saying either will be unable to be told apart from the PC version is a little laughable tho as 2 1/2 - 3 year old PC's can push the visuals higher and in many cases with better performance to boot.
 
Todd said:
“We had a year’s head start on the 360 because it came out a year earlier”

PCs have been around for decades. Apparently, PCs are not Next Gen enough.
 
30FPS?

and that's supposed to be impressive?!!

Thats not even half of the refresh rate of my monitor, (which I prefer to match to my frames per second in any shooter where I can alter the config to do so, like quake engine games) and I would not consider that "smooth" by any stretch of the imagination.

when the fps of a shooter, no matter how next-gen, is less than half of the frames per second that my eyes can process, IT IS NOT GOING TO LOOK SMOOTH.


If I hear one more time that they're making the game on the xbox360, but "It wont just be ported over (poorly) to the PC" I will seriously scream some profanity that would make even our most grizzled veterans flinch.
 
Man, this game'll kill my PC. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone will run it on full detail on the rigs we have available now. Most people still can't run Oblivion on medium details and have a decent rig.
 
If you really want to have the 360 vs ps3 vs PC discussion its been done to death a million times. I'm sure its on the Bethsoft forums too. 30 fps is about what it takes to make a game look smooth enough. Film is what, something like 28 or 32? I can't recall. Obviously PC users are going to be able to get more. As I recall the holy grail of fps is 60, whereas other games (rts, most rpgs, etc) do just dandy with 30.
 
Zaptoman said:
If you really want to have the 360 vs ps3 vs PC discussion its been done to death a million times. I'm sure its on the Bethsoft forums too. 30 fps is about what it takes to make a game look smooth enough. Film is what, something like 28 or 32? I can't recall. Obviously PC users are going to be able to get more. As I recall the holy grail of fps is 60, whereas other games (rts, most rpgs, etc) do just dandy with 30.

Film also has motion blur which has the effect of melding the action one frame to the next.
 
Zaptoman said:
If you really want to have the 360 vs ps3 vs PC discussion its been done to death a million times. I'm sure its on the Bethsoft forums too. 30 fps is about what it takes to make a game look smooth enough. Film is what, something like 28 or 32? I can't recall. Obviously PC users are going to be able to get more. As I recall the holy grail of fps is 60, whereas other games (rts, most rpgs, etc) do just dandy with 30.

Yeah, 30 is fine as far as I know, too. Though I don't see the difference between FPS requirements for an FPS and Fallout 3, since Fallout 3 is visually just like an FPS.

As for 360 vs ps3 vs PC debates, actually...this has never been a fighting ground for console warz, so I'm pretty unaware of the exact differences. I honestly thought the PS3 was pretty far ahead of the 360, but now I hear it isn't. So if knowledgeable people want to fill in the gaps, please do.
 
Film runs at 24 FPS, which works in harmony with the human eye's interpretation of light (24 cycles per second). Which isn't to say that we can't notice and enjoy something being displayed at a higher rate (HDTV), just that it's lagniappe.

Really, the most important factor in frame rate is consistancy. If a game only runs at 25 FPS, but it's completely solid, it will look better than something that jumps wildly from 20-60 FPS. IIRC Bioshock (oh no, cross-thread pollution!) had a video option on the 360 that let you select between a locked 30FPS mode and an unlocked mode that *could* go as high as 60, but frequently dipped when the on-screen action heated up.

Oddly enough, my new PC is beefy enough to run Bioshock with all the goodies turned up at a solid 75 FPS and the 360 version still looks better. Crysis also looks better in motion at around 30 FPS than it does at 60; it's hard to explain in detail, but generally the environments look somehow more believeable at 30FPS. IMO, anyway.
 
Ravager69 said:
Man, this game'll kill my PC. Anyway, I highly doubt anyone will run it on full detail on the rigs we have available now. Most people still can't run Oblivion on medium details and have a decent rig.
I pull Oblivion and Bioshock at max off a 3 year old nVidia GeForce 7600 GS. Then again, the card is infused with a demonic spirit conjured from out of the pages of the Necronomicon Ex-Mortis, so I have an unfair advantage.
Edit: Yes, the card actually does devour the souls of the computers it's put in. It's been through 2 so far. First one exploded, leaving only the video card intact.
 
Xbox 360 and PS3 are relatively the same. On paper the PS3 has more power, but from what I've heard from programmers coding for the cell chip is a pain in the ass, and thats why most games for PS3 look no different from the Xbox 360 versions.

The thing that is very annoying to me is just having to read the lines:

“The 360 is our lead development platform, so we got it working on that one first,”

UGH. So they take one of the best CRPGs of all time, and admittedly just turn it into console dreck... Fuck me running...
 
afaik, the human eye can receive information at a rate of nearly 70-72hz, which would be why using more than 30fps is a good idea if you want a crisp first person shooter experience that doesn't cause major eyestrain and look rather choppy when you're only sitting a few feet from the screen as you would be on a computer.

the supposed 60fps holy grail is based on how much smoother it looks and how many more packets you're sending a server in a multiplayer game than the person using the stock 30fps, since quite often the packet sending rate and maxfps are tied to each other. Its a reason that many multiplayer games have a built in maximum setting for fps, as there can be a major disparity in the ability to communicate with the server between two players running massively different rates and fps.

more than 60fps actually looks and feels even better if you have a monitor that can support a high refresh rate (windows xp tends to lock plug and play monitors at a max of 65hz, but 3rd party apps can fix this, so you aren't getting more fps than your monitor can effectively display if you set your maxfps setting to 90 or so)

30fps looks fine from a distance on a TV due to the way the eye blurs things naturally at a distance in order to focus on a wider target area. but, on a computer monitor it will tend to look pretty bad when you get a lot of things happening on screen that you need to focus on.

running 30fps in a PC shooter is on par with lowering your refresh rate until it's visually noticeable that your screen is redrawing.

:?
 
The 360 graphics card is way better then the one on the PS3. Just look at the specs. But I thought they were developing for the PC mainly because they didn't want to make the same mistake as they did with Oblivion. Bethesda are a bunch fucking liars. I once read it in the interview; they said they were trying to make the PC experience really good and not make it look like a port from the 360. But again, they lie. The only thing the PS3 has going for it is its processing power. Thats it. Then again, I don't like consoles that much anyway. I'll stick with my PC for better capability. I don't even know why I'm complaining about this anymore, but I still like to call out Bethesda from time to time. Maybe I heard an interview wrong, but it was my understanding they wanted to focus more on the PC and 360 second. Anyone want to enlighten me?
 
i thought they said they were doing a specific PC version (as far as UI goes) and a console version.

which ever case it may be, i imagine they'll do a similar oblivion fuck up and make the PC UI complete shit (hey you can buy 360 controllers for you PC now!) and it'll piss the lot of us off.

mass effect on PC is being pushed back because they aren't idiots and are actually taking their time to tailor make the UI and many other aspects specifically for PC users who use only mouse and keyboard.

so yeah, we're getting a shitty console port. if they don't release the developers toolkit, you might as well buy it on a console.
 
whirlingdervish said:
afaik, the human eye can receive information at a rate of nearly 70-72hz, which would be why using more than 30fps is a good idea if you want a crisp first person shooter experience that doesn't cause major eyestrain and look rather choppy when you're only sitting a few feet from the screen as you would be on a computer.

the supposed 60fps holy grail is based on how much smoother it looks and how many more packets you're sending a server in a multiplayer game than the person using the stock 30fps, since quite often the packet sending rate and maxfps are tied to each other. Its a reason that many multiplayer games have a built in maximum setting for fps, as there can be a major disparity in the ability to communicate with the server between two players running massively different rates and fps.

more than 60fps actually looks and feels even better if you have a monitor that can support a high refresh rate (windows xp tends to lock plug and play monitors at a max of 65hz, but 3rd party apps can fix this, so you aren't getting more fps than your monitor can effectively display if you set your maxfps setting to 90 or so)

30fps looks fine from a distance on a TV due to the way the eye blurs things naturally at a distance in order to focus on a wider target area. but, on a computer monitor it will tend to look pretty bad when you get a lot of things happening on screen that you need to focus on.

running 30fps in a PC shooter is on par with lowering your refresh rate until it's visually noticeable that your screen is redrawing.

:?

It also depends heavily on the stability of the game's netcode, while we're talking about multiplayer games, but yeah, generally, i totally agree.

30fps, for people who play many fast-paced games, like me, is laughable. If i got 30fps in, let's say, a Q3 duel, i would play like a cripple, the game would be so choppy for me. It isn't THAT important in single player games, but this isn't 96 anymore, where 30fps in Q1 was the epitome of smoothness.
 
goffy59 said:
But I thought they were developing for the PC mainly because they didn't want to make the same mistake as they did with Oblivion. Bethesda are a bunch fucking liars. I once read it in the interview; they said they were trying to make the PC experience really good and not make it look like a port from the 360.

they've said the 360 is the primary developing platform right from the start. They've never lied about that.
 
Madbringer said:
whirlingdervish said:
afaik, the human eye can receive information at a rate of nearly 70-72hz, which would be why using more than 30fps is a good idea if you want a crisp first person shooter experience that doesn't cause major eyestrain and look rather choppy when you're only sitting a few feet from the screen as you would be on a computer.

the supposed 60fps holy grail is based on how much smoother it looks and how many more packets you're sending a server in a multiplayer game than the person using the stock 30fps, since quite often the packet sending rate and maxfps are tied to each other. Its a reason that many multiplayer games have a built in maximum setting for fps, as there can be a major disparity in the ability to communicate with the server between two players running massively different rates and fps.

more than 60fps actually looks and feels even better if you have a monitor that can support a high refresh rate (windows xp tends to lock plug and play monitors at a max of 65hz, but 3rd party apps can fix this, so you aren't getting more fps than your monitor can effectively display if you set your maxfps setting to 90 or so)

30fps looks fine from a distance on a TV due to the way the eye blurs things naturally at a distance in order to focus on a wider target area. but, on a computer monitor it will tend to look pretty bad when you get a lot of things happening on screen that you need to focus on.

running 30fps in a PC shooter is on par with lowering your refresh rate until it's visually noticeable that your screen is redrawing.

:?

It also depends heavily on the stability of the game's netcode, while we're talking about multiplayer games, but yeah, generally, i totally agree.

30fps, for people who play many fast-paced games, like me, is laughable. If i got 30fps in, let's say, a Q3 duel, i would play like a cripple, the game would be so choppy for me. It isn't THAT important in single player games, but this isn't 96 anymore, where 30fps in Q1 was the epitome of smoothness.

If Fallout 3 is like Oblivion you're not going to be played a "fast paced action game" in the traditional sense, nor will you be playing online.

30 FPS is perfectly normal.
 
Back
Top