Codemasters: this gen of consoles is not powerful enough

Mr Men · 3 May 2007 at 12:55

dirtydog said:
The CMR and Toca games run better on the Xbox than they do on my PC, which on paper is much faster than an Xbox. You can always extract a lot better performance out of a fixed hardware platform. That is why it puzzles me that they can only manage 30fps this generation. Either they've suddenly become lazy or unskilled, or the hardware is lacking in some way.

FM2 can manage it, so all evidence points to lazy, which is Codemasters.

Manlove is my forte · 3 May 2007 at 12:55

dirtydog said:
The CMR and Toca games run better on the Xbox than they do on my PC, which on paper is much faster than an Xbox. You can always extract a lot better performance out of a fixed hardware platform. That is why it puzzles me that they can only manage 30fps this generation. Either they've suddenly become lazy or unskilled, or the hardware is lacking in some way.

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but could the TV be the problem?

What is the refresh rate of a 720p tv? (same question for 1080i and 1080p)

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 12:56

Kronologic said:
I don't know if this has been mentioned yet but could the TV be the problem?

What is the refresh rate of a 720p tv? (same question for 1080i and 1080p)

If that were true then no game would run at more than 30fps. It isn't the TV that is the problem

i-bert · 3 May 2007 at 13:05

Forza2 has 60fps so they are lazy.

EDIT-

JaFFa · 3 May 2007 at 13:11

I dont believe them. I can believe that they arent good enough to make a game that looks as good as a games running at 30fps but what does that mean ? Of course a game running at half the speed can easily look better.

Its not like the games running at 60fps look worse than Xbox games. They are after all at the very least in high def and will have high def textures with some AA.

What do they expect, the companies are already selling them at a loss because the technology is so expensive for a console.

Dutch Guy · 3 May 2007 at 13:25

Kronologic said:
What is the refresh rate of a 720p tv? (same question for 1080i and 1080p)

720p/1080p is 60hz and AFAIK 480i/720i/1080i is 30Hz

But I always thought that Hz != fps :confused:

~J~ · 3 May 2007 at 13:43

They aren't been lazy at all, they are speaking common sense.

I bet the developers love you lot!

One half of the fence condemns them for not having games fast enough, but hey, the graphics are sweet, but look how fast the PS2 did it!

The other half condemns them for having average looking games with a 60fps framecount but o deary me, the graphics aren't as good as that last Xbox title was it.

Half say it doesn't matter, it's playability, the other half say it's about showing off graphics and getting the most for your money.

Chirst ona bike, what the hell do people want!

A compromise? "Great" graphics at 45fps? Would that please people?

Yes you can 'force' more out of a PC, but the PC is a totally different architecture as a console, the developers can code what the **** they want (ala The Assembly demos similar to http://212.202.219.162/kkrieger ). Is THAT what you want?

You've got 2 next-gen consoles that have been launched, both of which are 100 times better looking, faster, sleaker, offer so much more than before, are relatively affordable a huge catalogue of games coming shortly and people still aren't bloody happy.

It's pathetic.

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 14:10

~J~ said:
Chirst ona bike, what the hell do people want!

A compromise? "Great" graphics at 45fps? Would that please people?

The reason for the 60 figure is that the fps needs to sync with the television's refresh rate in order to be smooth. If it doesn't then there will be stuttering or tearing etc. This means 25 or 50fps for PAL50, or 30/60 fps for PAL60, NTSC or VGA.

~J~ · 3 May 2007 at 14:19

Now you're just winding me up!!

I know about the refresh rates, you don't have to teach your crusade to me, I know it well enough, 45fps is in between 30 and 60! Doh!! Thought you of all people wouldn't question it!

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 14:32

Re your 2nd last post though - look at Colin McRae 2005 for example. Not only does it run at 60fps - and without tearing or stuttering either - the graphics are actually bloody good. Very detailed, loads of effects like depth of field etc. And the replays are 60fps too unlike some games we could mention

For Codemasters to say that the sequel to this will run at half the speed because the 360/PS3 aren't fast enough, even though the Xbox and PS2 were fast enough, doesn't wash with me. And if you read the Codemasters forum thread I linked to, it doesn't impress a lot of avid CMR fans either.

Mr Men · 3 May 2007 at 14:36

dirtydog said:
RFor Codemasters to say that the sequel to this will run at half the speed because the 360/PS3 aren't fast enough, even though the Xbox and PS2 were fast enough, doesn't wash with me.

So you agree they are lazy then

Kamakazie! · 3 May 2007 at 15:33

dirtydog said:
Re your 2nd last post though - look at Colin McRae 2005 for example. Not only does it run at 60fps - and without tearing or stuttering either - the graphics are actually bloody good. Very detailed, loads of effects like depth of field etc. And the replays are 60fps too unlike some games we could mention For Codemasters to say that the sequel to this will run at half the speed because the 360/PS3 aren't fast enough, even though the Xbox and PS2 were fast enough, doesn't wash with me. And if you read the Codemasters forum thread I linked to, it doesn't impress a lot of avid CMR fans either.

It's hardly lazy to say that you are hardware limited to 30fps because you want to put more detail in to the environments/models and incorporate better physics/sound.
If it is bad coding then it is bad coding, but it is certainly not lazy.
There is also nothing unreasonable about it. They are saying that there is not really enough power to increase the pixel count by 400% AND increase the polygon count AND include more shader detail AND include HDR AND include better physics and sound AND keep the framerate at 60fps.

Now it may well be possible, but at this stage the really top quality looking games are all running at 30FPS. I am not saying this is right, but 30FPS seems to be becoming the norm.

Doesn't matter to me either way as i will be playing it on the PC

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 15:41

Kamakazie! said:
30FPS seems to be becoming the norm.

Yes it does, doesn't it

Hardware is getting more powerful yet we are moving backwards. In the arcades, racing games have all been 60fps for 20 years or more. I think it is wrong that we should have to accept substandard fps in 2007.

Mr Men · 3 May 2007 at 15:46

dirtydog said:
Yes it does, doesn't it Hardware is getting more powerful yet we are moving backwards. In the arcades, racing games have all been 60fps for 20 years or more. I think it is wrong that we should have to accept substandard fps in 2007.

You dont have to accept it, dont buy it, make your stand, show them you mean business, buy the 60FPS racing games, that will teach them

Manlove is my forte · 3 May 2007 at 15:48

dirtydog said:
Yes it does, doesn't it Hardware is getting more powerful yet we are moving backwards. In the arcades, racing games have all been 60fps for 20 years or more. I think it is wrong that we should have to accept substandard fps in 2007.

Its hardly moving backwards when they are taking so many steps forwards. This is just one area where they have had to compromise in order to make everything else look better. and as I have already said, things will probably get better still over the coming months and years and you may yet get your holy grail 60fps.

I really do not understand your hangup on frame rates tbh. It seems to me that it is the only way you can benchmark the hardware. IMO its like comparing PC's based on their hard drive capacity.

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 15:52

Mr Men said:
You dont have to accept it, dont buy it, make your stand, show them you mean business, buy the 60FPS racing games, that will teach them

I bought PGR 2 and Forza, both 30 fps, both good games but every time I play them I am conscious of the low framerate and unavoidably aware that I am playing a compromise. Rally games need to be 60fps. Sega Rally 2 on the Dreamcast was 30fps because they tried to include too much graphical detail, and it was awful. I have no doubt that CM: Dirt will be the same.

Mr Men · 3 May 2007 at 15:53

Toca 2 was 60FPS, and their rally sections were awful, FPS does not make a game.

dirtydog · 3 May 2007 at 15:57

Mr Men said:
Toca 2 was 60FPS, and their rally sections were awful, FPS does not make a game.

I would never say that fps in and of itself makes a good game; of course not

Yes the rally sections in Toca 2 were poor. They are not much improved in Toca 3 either. But the CMR games themselves had (IMO) very good gameplay and it would be very much spoiled by halving the framerate. The Richard Burns rally game was awful because of the 30fps framerate for example.

Mr Men · 3 May 2007 at 16:07

The last CMR game I played on the xbox had terrible slowdown ruined the game. I would rather they admit they aint good enough to get 60FPS and lock it to 30FPS rather than mess the game up with slowdown. Saying RBR is awful? lol it ripped CMR apart.

McManicMan · 3 May 2007 at 16:11

you must be in the 1% of the population that are effected by 30fps, i've played PGR 2 and Forza on the xbox with PGR 2 extensively and i too me its fine, if the game is coded properly for 30fps it'll be fine, if it isn't then it'll show due to lower framerate.

i've seen screen tearing in them CM Dirt vids, prehaps Codemasters are moaning now so that we are all not dissappointed when released and we blame the hardware rather than them being Lazy with their coding, just like what happened with the MOTOGP team