Framerate issues, tearing...etc

KittensCake · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:11

Why do developers constantly sacrifice framerate and allow tearing issues in order for the game to feature higher graphical detail? Don't they realise even if a game has awesome graphics it looks horrible to the eye when there's huge framerate dips and tearing?

I got Mass Effect a few days ago and it just feels horrible to play because of the horrible framerate dips and tearing.

I would much rather have a game that looks slightly worse graphically but runs at a nice framerate more or less constantly with v-sync and so no tearing than a game which looks slightly better but with horrible framerate dips and tearing all the time.

Why do they do this? I'm getting kind of sick of it, nearly every game I've played so far on my 360 has either framerate issues, tearing, or both, and there's nothing I can do about it. It almost makes me want to go back to PC gaming where I can more or less always play my games at a constantly high framerate with no tearing.

Again I guess this also links into the discussion earlier about SD and HD. Why did we move to HD when we can't even display graphics which frankly aren't that good when there's horrible framerate issues, tearing, loads of jaggies...etc.

wedgie · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:14

The vast majority of games only look better due to the increased resolution. The jump had to be made at some point, just because some devs push it a little too far doesn't mean we should have waited another gen to make it.

Janesy B · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:15

Are you sure it isn't your TV? I have no issues whatsoever. The only game that slows down for me is GTA4

Hunders · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:24

Mass Effect was fine for me.

KittensCake · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:33

wedgie said:
The vast majority of games only look better due to the increased resolution. The jump had to be made at some point, just because some devs push it a little too far doesn't mean we should have waited another gen to make it.

What do you mean only look better? Only look better compared to what? Are you saying we reached the limitations of SD, meaning that any further increase in graphical detail would not be noticeable at that resolution? If you are then you're wrong.

Janesy B said:
Are you sure it isn't your TV? I have no issues whatsoever. The only game that slows down for me is GTA4

So my TV is somehow reducing the framerate in games? I don't think so. I'm running my 360 at 720p @ 60Hz through a 1366x768 native resolution HDTV, pretty much your standard and most common setup to be playing a 360 through.

Some people especially those that have never really gotten into PC gaming, are just oblivious to framerate issues. To me, smooth is 60 fps or more. Some people I know just can't see it, they play a console game which to me run horribly and they say it's perfectly smooth. They're just used to it I guess, whereas I was used to playing my PC games at a pretty much constant 60 fps with no tearing.

JUMPURS · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:51

Janesy B said:
Are you sure it isn't your TV? I have no issues whatsoever. The only game that slows down for me is GTA4

It's not his TV, many next gen games have serious issues with tearing and slowdown.

Funny thing is, 2 of the best looking games of this gen (imo) have none, Gears and MGS4. MGS4 is probably the best looking game i have ever played (ooohhh feel the flames) and it is rock solid, and no tearing. Gears is probably still the best looking game on the xbox and that is rock solid too.

Things change I've changed · 16 Jun 2008 at 11:55

tbh screen tearing doesn't really bother me as long as the frame rate is smooth, I guess I'm just used to it with PC games.

Dark_Angel · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:00

JUMPURS said:
It's not his TV, many next gen games have serious issues with tearing and slowdown.

Funny thing is, 2 of the best looking games of this gen (imo) have none, Gears and MGS4. MGS4 is probably the best looking game i have ever played (ooohhh feel the flames) and it is rock solid, and no tearing. Gears is probably still the best looking game on the xbox and that is rock solid too.

You actually have a point.

Uncharted on the PS3, Gears on the 360, MGS4, plus a few others are perfectly fine. I am guessing it is down to the developers not doing all they can with the code.

I am happy we are using HD now - I think the only major problem both consoles have is not quite enough ram or GPU power. Consoles always seem to have the bare amount of RAM possible!

wedgie · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:23

KittensCake said:
What do you mean only look better? Only look better compared to what? Are you saying we reached the limitations of SD, meaning that any further increase in graphical detail would not be noticeable at that resolution? If you are then you're wrong.

No, I'm saying the move to HD makes games look better and the jump had to be made at some point. It's pretty obvious stuff really.

Margaret · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:25

lowrider007 said:
tbh screen tearing doesn't really bother me as long as the frame rate is smooth, I guess I'm just used to it with PC games.

How are you used to it on PC games?

You don't use v-sync?

KittensCake · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:29

wedgie said:
No, I'm saying the move to HD makes games look better and the jump had to be made at some point. It's pretty obvious stuff really.

But does it? If you weren't displaying in HD, the console would have more power to render higher detailed models..etc, and perhaps at a reasonable framerate with no tearing for once. If we haven't reached the limitations of SD, then why did we move to HD? I don't believe we were at the point where it was necessary to move to HD at the time of the 360's release, especially since HDTV's weren't commonplace meaning even further investment from the consumer which in part kind of goes against what consoles are about.

wedgie · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:34

Well I'm glad we moved to HD anyway. I don't really care if there was a little extra to squeeze out of SD, having played 360 games in SD for a period of time, there's no way I would want to go back to doing that now.

Devs have always pushed the boundries between quality and performance, HD isn't the cause of this, it's just another factor.

rp2000 · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:36

Dark_Angel said:
You actually have a point.

Uncharted on the PS3, Gears on the 360, MGS4, plus a few others are perfectly fine. I am guessing it is down to the developers not doing all they can with the code.

I am happy we are using HD now - I think the only major problem both consoles have is not quite enough ram or GPU power. Consoles always seem to have the bare amount of RAM possible!

Gears on 360 had tearing (try turning fast in SP mode, albeit very minimal and in some scenes only). Uncharted had tearing as well, they disguisied it well in Uncharted. If you turned camera cvery quickly a "blur" style affect kicks in and no tearing, but if you turn at an average speed (not using the analogue sticks fully then you see tearing as well.) MGS4 has not had any tearing that I noticed (I have only played a few hours though).

I have Mass Effect but have not played it, but by all accounts it had more than it's fair share of tearing and also popup(s).

p.s. There is nothing wrong with the TVs I used these games on or the settings

rp2000

Wyrdo · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:46

Uncharted had rather bad tearing in places, I've even noticed it once in MGS4 near the begining but it was very brief and only in the one spot so far.

Tearing does my head in more than frame rate drops.

Margaret · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:48

MGS4 has quite a few framerate dips.

...like most console games these days.

KittensCake · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:52

wedgie said:
Well I'm glad we moved to HD anyway. I don't really care if there was a little extra to squeeze out of SD, having played 360 games in SD for a period of time, there's no way I would want to go back to doing that now.

But that's different isn't it, because you're not getting the extra graphical detail that you would otherwise have if consoles hadn't gone HD. Also I believe most games render at either their full resolution or a slightly lower resolution then scaled down to SD, so it's not the same as playing a native SD game.

wedgie · 16 Jun 2008 at 12:56

KittensCake said:
But that's different isn't it, because you're not getting the extra graphical detail that you would otherwise have if consoles hadn't gone HD. Also I believe most games render at either their full resolution or a slightly lower resolution then scaled down to SD, so it's not the same as playing a native SD game.

So what's your point? I'm not going to change my mind that I'm glad console games are now at higher resolutions.

As I said in the last part of that post which you ignored, it's always been a balancing act between quality and performance, HD is just another factor. Most games get the balance right imo.

Things change I've changed · 16 Jun 2008 at 13:05

Jihad said:
How are you used to it on PC games?

You don't use v-sync?

Never, I hate the mouse lag you get when you have it enabled, tbh though even if there was no mouse lag I'd still have it disabled because 'Smooth frame-rate' > 'Screen Tearing'.

mcwildcard · 16 Jun 2008 at 13:07

I rarely notice any tearing ever, I don't really care about it tbh, frame drops are infinitely more annoying and only when they really impact a game.

dannyjo22 · 16 Jun 2008 at 13:40

JUMPURS said:
Gears is probably still the best looking game on the xbox and that is rock solid too.

It will be interesting to see if the 2nd one tears if the game is larger. Gears 1 shouldn't really the game is tiny.

I reckon gears 2 will be just as small tomaintain quality and fit it on a dvd9