XBOX 360 my concerns

must be rubbish if davey is agreeing :D

Alright maybe i was bit harsh on the DD comment but i hate threads like "60fps only!" or "Which is better PS3 vs xbox360" "PC vs 360" etc.. there is no need for any of them unless they is HUGE issues that warrant the conversation.

Like said PGR3 is silky smooth doesnt slow down at all, and burnout revenge is incredibly fast and smooth at 60fps. Just goes to show it doesnt matter what it is as long as it plays smooth.
 
Am I right in thinking that the normal PAL standard only displays 25 (complete) frames per second? And then PAL60 only displays 30 fps?

I'm guessing HD standards go up to 60fps, so unless you have an HDTV all games are only running at 25 or 30fps. Considering the PS1 didn't support HD (and not many PS2 games did although the console itself did) then why is the OP complaining if games have pretty much always been only 30fps?
 
~J~ said:
In defense to DD, he does make some damn valid points and he does bring is point across in a sensible and adult manner, gotta give him respect for that.
Couldn't agree more, infact, DirtyDog is in my top10 posters here as his threads are always 50% fact and 50% opinion and that always makes for interesting posts, he also knows what he's talking about most of the time.
 
Davey_Pitch said:
Why are some people so obsessed with framerates? I've got PGR3 and it's completely smooth. I also have Burnout Revenge (running at 60FPS) and you can't tell the difference between them. Seriously, I can't see why it bothers some people.

PGR3 is not smooth in the slightest, maybe your eyes dont see it.
 
PC's is a whole different kettle here. They run on monitors not TV's. Console games tend to be locked at either 30fps or 60fpsNTSC and 25fps or 50PAL.. Sorry I've been mentioning 35fps but it's actually 25fps in PAL. Not every console game is locked, just 95% of them. If the hardware is not up to it, the easy fix is just lock the game at 30fps, cos lets face it not everyone is as fussy as me.

Reason being is because of the refresh freq of tv's. PAL 50hz NTSC 60hz Film is normally 24fps but with motion blur. Consoles do not have motion blur, which is why the difference between 60fps & 30fps is like the difference between night & day. So this argument has been argued before. If it bothers you so much then click NEXT TOPIC ! I've not read anyone elses comments on this as I hardly ever post here, except for when something as BAD as the latest console still not being able to muster up a Oi! No swearing! 60fps for every single game that one would expect it can handle hands down. Yes to me it is unacceptable. Obviosly not to everyone, but to some, and that's enough to warrant a discussion on these boards.


Psyk said:
Am I right in thinking that the normal PAL standard only displays 25 (complete) frames per second? And then PAL60 only displays 30 fps?

I'm guessing HD standards go up to 60fps, so unless you have an HDTV all games are only running at 25 or 30fps. Considering the PS1 didn't support HD (and not many PS2 games did although the console itself did) then why is the OP complaining if games have pretty much always been only 30fps?
 
thedoc46 said:
I've not read anyone elses comments on this as I hardly ever post here, except for when something as BAD as the latest console still not being able to muster up a Oi! No swearing! 60fps for every single game that one would expect it can handle hands down.

Blame the developers then, it is absolutely 100% nothing to do with the power of the console. Most developers have rushed to get their games out as quick as they can, and in doing so have made some sacrifices, and yes, in some cases that has been the framerate.

You've still not answered my question though - how much have you played on an Xbox 360?
 
I doubt he owns one, his m8 of a m8 who see some guy playing on one through a window as they walked home from school said :rolleyes:

good luck with the future as i got a feeling ure gonna be feeling disappointed for a long time lol
 
Davey_Pitch said:
Blame the developers then, it is absolutely 100% nothing to do with the power of the console. Most developers have rushed to get their games out as quick as they can, and in doing so have made some sacrifices, and yes, in some cases that has been the framerate.

You've still not answered my question though - how much have you played on an Xbox 360?

only what they've had on demo in the stores. I played PGR3, Kameo, and King Kong for a while yesterday, which upset me enough to make a post. Yes it's sloppy developing, but I really did hope that this console with it's triple cores and next gen gfx would STILL be able to overcome sloppy developing enough to sort out frame rates.

For me, it does affect my enjoyment. Even though I am able to overcome my complaints when the game is good enough. it's also been enough to totally put me off some (PGR2 and Halo) I just couldn't get into either cos I thought the games looked rough. On the other hand some of my best ever games have had sloppy frames rates the GTA series is a perfect example.

To be told I should be banned from posting such drivvel is insane! This is a valid argument, even though it's been argued before.
 
I have more issues with the frame rates on pc games. To run recent titles at decent settings and at a high res you need a super computer. My x800 xtpe has been struggling for ages - infact it couldn't run many games at solid 60fps at launch. My mate, who's just got a 7900, is in a similar position, and gets more slow down in Oblivion than I do on my 360.

A low framerate also looks far worse on a monitor than on most tvs. I'm a complete frame rate whore, and can't stand anything below 50 fps on a monitor (and even that bugs me). I can happily handle a fixed 30 fps on a tv, though.

So far i've been very happy with the 360 launch, and despite the odd hiccup, have had no problems with performance (the loadng times in Oblivions outdoor sections proving to be the most annoying). The PS2 had an absolutely terrible launch, yet turned out just fine - have a little faith :)
 
thedoc46 said:
For starters back back in 95 during the PS1 and Saturn launches, consoles didnt have the graphic prowness to run games at 60fps. Very few titles did. The PS2 main driving launch title was Ridge Racer which was a 60fps game. Closely followed by GT3 which was a??? 60fps game. Pretty much most driving games on the PS2 are 60fps, it's rare we get to see a sloppy 35fps game on a PS2. The original XBOX's PGR was a 60fps game. PGR2 wasn't though. I expect a driving game to be 60fps that's all. It's not much to ask is it for a triple core next gen machine is it? Especially since it's predecesor's could manage it.

My prediction was correct, I've been jumped on with comments like 'why are people so obsessed with frame rates blah blah blah'. If I was to go out and buy a top of the range BMW and it didn't drive smoothly, I'd be dispointed wouldn't I. Same applies with a console, If I am to spend a lot of money for the latest and greatest, then I want it to be exactly that. SMOOTH. I want it to be smooth and jaggy free. A 35 fps game is not smooth compared to a 60fps game. Does it affect gameplay probably not. But that's not the point here, we are buying these new beasts not because they will provide us better gameplay, but cos they are supposed to give us better graphics.

My other concern is that the machine has been a flop in Japan.. Is the european and US market enough? It's a slice, but Japan is still considered the most important market out there. Unfortunately for Microsoft's sake Sony have now have easy pickings in Japan for their launch!

You sir, have a brick wall in front of your mind that has 'misinformed, information may not pass through'. In case there is a crack in said wall, I suggest you look up how many years after the PS2 launch that GT3 came out.

Anyway, I suggest buying a PC [removed, might not be a wise continuation of this sentence].

Oh just to point out - 720p is ~60fps (its actually a few hundredths over) constant on any HD compatible set. Any progressive HD input is ~60fps, thats regardless of the source material, the image is updated 60 times a second, even if its just repeating the frame (if the frame isn't updated, and the source device doesn't provide the extra frames, the TV in essence does it for you). However it does raise an interesting prospect - complaining about lack of 60fps on older pre-HD consoles when only HD offers a genuine visible 60fps. Makes you think....
 
Last edited:
thedoc46 said:
only what they've had on demo in the stores. I played PGR3, Kameo, and King Kong for a while yesterday, which upset me enough to make a post. Yes it's sloppy developing, but I really did hope that this console with it's triple cores and next gen gfx would STILL be able to overcome sloppy developing enough to sort out frame rates.

For me, it does affect my enjoyment. Even though I am able to overcome my complaints when the game is good enough. it's also been enough to totally put me off some (PGR2 and Halo) I just couldn't get into either cos I thought the games looked rough. On the other hand some of my best ever games have had sloppy frames rates the GTA series is a perfect example.

To be told I should be banned from posting such drivvel is insane! This is a valid argument, even though it's been argued before.

OK, you're now starting to make more-sensible points.

There's a few people on here who are, or have close friends who are in the games industry. Like EVERY piece of hardware that comes out, you're given a strict dev-kit to create the work. You're not told about the hidden extras such as how to do double-buffering within the first 10 raster scans or the like. I 'kinda' agree about the programming, after all it's the program that IS the game, but you really can't ever in a million years say that that advance of hardware will lower sloppy programming. In the very least, it's actually gonna bring out 'more' poor coding techniques as the developer will expect the new triple-core GPU's with onboard physics will be able to handle 1000 particles with ease, and if it CAN handle a 1000, of course it will handle 2000 or more. Wrong! I can guarantee with my own experience, that the majority of games been released now are not optimised, and as such, you are going to get the odd 'slowdown' like what's been seen in Full Auto as a perfect example.

The developers there have play-tested/beta-tested with particles, they've gleemed with joy on how well the hardware has handled all the mathematics and to jump on the fast-moving bandwagon, have released it. It's only when 'the' gamers get their hands on it do 'we' put it to the test, ram hundreds of cars, explosions galore and then notice the slowdown.

I agree, if it effects your enjoyment, then that's bad, you can blame the programmers, but you can't blame the hardware. To use your own analogy with the BMW, it's all very well buying a Series 3 with a top-speed of 175mph, but no matter what driver goes in, you're not going to get faster unless you do some fancy moves such as driving with the wind behind you or some fancy turns to increase momentum. The cars is still only capable of 175mph, it's other factors that are helping it shift faster. Car=Xbox, other influences=Programmers.

As a lot have said, I'll throw down my own gauntlet here.

I challenge you to play Kameo, get to the fight scene with the trolls in the valleys whilst you're on the horse and then come back and tell me what you think. No threats, no hassle, no sarcasm, no cocky attitude from me, but seriously have a look and then tell me if you can that, armed with the correct programmers and 'tricks' that the console isn't a winner.
 
To reiterate what i have said earlier in this thread and also to add to J's point above. This console has more power than any PC architecture ive yet seen. Okay sure ive not had an fx-60 setup with crossfire x1900's and a seperate PPU chip. and yes im quite sure that used correctly that muscle could outdo the 360. But sloppy coding im afraid is not confined to PC games, choppy framerates in early games are nothing new. What this argument is about escapes me at the minuite. Let me try and sum up...

You say: Games should be at 60fps because they look better

General opinion: The difference in FPS is not noticeable, the only noticable problem is when you get very low FPS (sub 25) which is due to sloppy coding not the FPS cap/lock or hardware.

You also seem to be basing your opinion on demo pods. That demo disc was released before many of the games and to quote the classic magazine-disc line "the games within this disc are not representative of the final product".

I personally dont remember PGR3 being jerky in the slightest, full auto was, annoyingly so, very sloppy. Apparently a lot of the early EA sports titles suffered too. Oblivion has some judderyness, although im fully prepared to forgo that for the best visuals ive ever seen. Kameo never faltered once to my memory despite some scenes that had my jaw on the flaw with their scale. Condemned had very rare pauses for a very tasty looking game. NFS:MW was a bit sketchy FPS wise at times, but good on the whole.

Basically, wow bang surprise! Some games have bad framerates others didnt. On the whole it was mostly acceptable. In the future its BOUND to improve.

Ive had behemoth PC's and ive run the latest games. The 360 is without a doubt the smoothest gaming experience ive had, and ive not even begun talking about the sublime integration of Live! the wonderful responsive wireless control system, the super chic design the fantastic wireless connectivity (if overpriced lol).

You can sit around debating the rhetoric of "yes but it breaks a lot" "Some of the games are buggy" and "i dont like the way it looks"

You can moan all you want about paying for live subs. About the price of the games and about paying for added content.

Personally thats fine with me, go ahead please. Hate this console with all your might. Because i expected to dislike it, im a sony fanboy at heart, but this console IS the best way to game at this point in time. I dont care if an uber PC gets better FPS. I dont care if PS3 looks better. I can climb outta this chair and go sit on the couch, i can chat to m8's, i can play the best looking titles available today, i can flick onto a DVD or play some tunes, i can browse the marketplace for a new demo or trailer, i can play some retro styled games in the arcade.

I CAN do loads of things. In fact the only thing i CAN'T seem to do is figure out why the hell people have such a beef with this console, i mean you know things could be worse couldnt they?
 
Last edited:
thedoc46 said:
it's also been enough to totally put me off some (PGR2 and Halo) .
2 of my 5 favourite games ever, frame rate was never an issue for me on those as they played beautifully.

Also, Neon, you don't have a clue buddy, you played a dodgy version before the console was out, I have all the games you played there and there aren't issues with any of them.
 
Ultra_Extreme said:
Personally thats fine with me, go ahead please. Hate this console with all your might. Because i expected to dislike it, im a sony fanboy at heart, but this console IS the best way to game at this point in time. I dont care if an uber PC gets better FPS. I dont care if PS3 looks better. I can climb outta this chair and go sit on the couch, i can chat to m8's, i can play the best looking titles available today, i can flick onto a DVD or play some tunes, i can browse the marketplace for a new demo or trailer, i can play some retro styled games in the arcade.

I CAN do loads of things. In fact the only thing i CAN'T seem to do is figure out why the hell people have such a beef with this console, i mean you know things could be worse couldnt they?

Quote of the Year.

I agree with him 100% on EVERYTHING stated here. People have a problem with it for some reason, is it because it's Microsoft? - Maybe. Is it because it's not Sony? Possibly. Is it because they don't have one? - Definitely.
 
Hang on!

If we lurve this machine so much, why are we arguing about it and not playing on it?


/coat got. :p
 
thedoc46 said:
every game I've seen running only runs at 35FPS???

You won't have seen any games running at that speed, actually :p ;)
(The only speeds you will see are 25/50 or 30/60, never 35)

There are a number of 60fps games on the 360, like DOA4, Ridge Racer 6, COD 2 etc. so that proves that the console is capable of it :) It's the devs who aren't doing it, either because it's new hardware which they're getting to grips with, or because they choose higher detail over framerate. FWIW there are plenty of 30fps games on the Xbox1, and also the PS2 - think the Need For Speed series for example.

I also personally prefer 60fps particularly for driving games, but I recognise that most people seem to be perfectly happy with 30fps so there is no need for me to try and convince them otherwise if they are happy. Incidentally this subject has been discussed in this forum at great length :)

With that I will leave the thread and hope nobody noticed me :D
 
My mates got a elite pc but he's always round playing on my xbox 360 ;) and as said above if Burnout runs at 60fps and PGR3 30fps i can't tell any difference, PGR3 flies the framerate is more than good enough.

I still haven't seen any racer on the pc too match PGR3, best racing game i played for a long long time then burnout comes out which is brill too, 2 great racers within 4 months of a new console cant be bad i been waiting years on the pc and still not seen a decent one. I can't imagine the hrs i put in on pgr3 online awesome game.

PGR3 was rushed out for the launch everyone knows that as the developers said that ive never played a pc game that runs as smooth as this. The 360 is capable of 4xaa with no performance hit at all this is stated in the specs its just the developers aint used to it yet takes time.

I think you will find most that are pc gamers have had more fun since they got there 360 than they ever had on there pc, i have for one. Turn it on put a dvd in and off you go, no hassle gaming my pc days are over for games plus the fact theres never anything worth playing on the pc
 
Back
Top Bottom