The framerate in this game is something else..

  • 62 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by RainVillain (480 posts) -

At first I wasn't sure if it was Zelda-style where the game stylishly freezes for a millisecond when you strike something, or if it was just a bad framerate, but now I'm pretty sure it's a mix of both.

It's really weird and, imo, kinda jarring. I think I'm done with this title.

I don't mean to totally bash the game. The music is great and the look of the game is fantastic. The combat seems to have a fair bit of depth and hits feel good, but the slowdown is just really bugging me.

Does it get any better? =/

#2 Edited by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@RainVillain said:

At first I wasn't sure if it was Zelda-style where the game stylishly freezes for a millisecond when you strike something, or if it was just a bad framerate, but now I'm pretty sure it's a mix of both.

It's really weird and, imo, kinda jarring. I think I'm done with this title.

I don't mean to totally bash the game. The music is great and the look of the game is fantastic. The combat seems to have a fair bit of depth and hits feel good, but the slowdown is just really bugging me.

Does it get any better? =/

I can understand how you feel. I think Atlus should feel obliged to release a patch, reason being one of the things they lauded about this western version was it's "technical enhancements" - primarily pertaining to the frame-rate issues the Japanese version had. It's worse... There's a couple of threads on atlus.com that are worth posting in. I think Nintendo are partly to blame also, they should raise the CPU clocks higher, I can think of a few games that need it. I'd email them also, they cleared this game for release.

Edit:

Let me clarify my standpoint once and for all. The way I see it, this is an all party issue, no one party is to blame. It's also an issue which I think breaks from the norm. I know many game have issues like this.. This game isn't "broken", not the Japanese or the NA version, I have never once said it is, I merely agreed with the OP, knowing how it feels to buy a game and have a little issue like this which can ruin it.

When a company claims it's technically enhanced, and aims to imply the enhancement relates to the known issues of a prior version, then I think there is an issue with that.

Atlus: if they were going to claim it was improved, should have made sure it really was improved, after all, a repeat of what happened in Japan would not be good for sales. if they wanted to avoid that, they should have made attempts to make sure via the developers.

Nintendo: They should have been aware of the earlier issues with the Japanese version, and also aware that Atlus were advertising this version as being technically improved, they should have sought assurances and some evidence of this. Nintendo didn't take it upon themselves to do this, if they had this would not have happened.

On their download services, they're extremely nit picky with smaller devs, why couldn't they have been as picky with this cart release?. I personally suspect having a game of this type in the West was their only concern.

I know It's only Nintendo's role to make sure software has a certain level of quality, and doesn't have content which breaks from their rules. I am well aware of this. this doesn't however make their standpoint right, which is to do nothing. Nintendo should be always be unhappy if false advertising result in this, and if the company lacks policies which prevent this kind of thing from happening, they should look to address that in future. That's why i asked the Op to send an e-mail to Nintendo also. I know they don't do this currently!, but they should and they can. I don't expect Nintendo to check every game like this, only in these kind of circumstances where improvements are due.

:)

#3 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung Nintendo can't be held at fault for a third-party developer failing to improve the framerate.
Online
#4 Posted by evanbower (1211 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung Yeahhhh, throwing Nintendo under the bus doesn't make any sense. The hardware is what it is.. Code of Princess was designed for it, so should work with what it has. Also, is this not a 2d beat em-up? From what I've seen of it, I have no idea how it could be so technically taxing.
#5 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@RainVillain said:

At first I wasn't sure if it was Zelda-style where the game stylishly freezes for a millisecond when you strike something, or if it was just a bad framerate, but now I'm pretty sure it's a mix of both.

It's really weird and, imo, kinda jarring. I think I'm done with this title.

I don't mean to totally bash the game. The music is great and the look of the game is fantastic. The combat seems to have a fair bit of depth and hits feel good, but the slowdown is just really bugging me.

Does it get any better? =/

I can understand how you feel. I think Atlus should feel obliged to release a patch, reason being one of the things they lauded about this western version was it's "technical enhancements" - primarily pertaining to the frame-rate issues the Japanese version had. It's supposed to be worse... There's a couple of threads on atlus.com that are worth posting in. I think Nintendo are partly to blame also, they should raise the CPU clocks higher, I can think of a few games that need it. I'd email them also, they cleared this game for release.

They should fix it, no question / (Atlus)

Atlus? They didn't make the game, so it's not them that will be releasing a patch...

#6 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Online
#7 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

Online
#8 Edited by evanbower (1211 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Hailinel said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung Nintendo can't be held at fault for a third-party developer failing to improve the framerate.

@evanbower said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung Yeahhhh, throwing Nintendo under the bus doesn't make any sense. The hardware is what it is.. Code of Princess was designed for it, so should work with what it has. Also, is this not a 2d beat em-up? From what I've seen of it, I have no idea how it could be so technically taxing.

They can be, by routine Nintendo demand changes when they feel it's appropriate for whatever reason. Nintendo put this game though it's own supposedly stringent approval process. In light of the claim by Atlus that this game has been technically enhanced, and in light of the issues that plagued the Japanese version, Nintendo are partly to blame for not requesting these changes be made, so that they back up the claim that this version is "technically enhanced" over the Japanese version.

Western gamers bought the game on the premise it was improved technically. It was a lie...

The increase in more power available from the CPU's, while good, still falls short because Nintendo are running them both conservatively. The 3DS still struggles to cope in a few games I've seen. It shouldn't happen.

So you're saying that Nintendo is responsible for fixing a bad frame rate only insofar as it as their platform and they need quality control? Yikes... if it were that easy, bad framerates would only be something we could talk about in theory because every gaming platform would have such a rigid approval process, protecting us gamers.

#9 Posted by evanbower (1211 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

..... wow, you sound mad.

When a publisher forms a business deal to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.

When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin. Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales. Is that still hard for you to understand?

edit:

Rubbish, there have been a total of seven patches so far on 3DS eShop, two more if you own Ambassador VC games.

Ohhhh, they made a claim! Hold the phone everybody. A company made a claim, and may not have completely delivered on it.

#10 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@evanbower said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

..... wow, you sound mad.

When a publisher forms a business deal to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.

When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin. Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales. Is that still hard for you to understand?

edit:

Rubbish, there have been a total of seven patches so far on 3DS eShop, two more if you own Ambassador VC games.

Ohhhh, they made a claim! Hold the phone everybody. A company made a claim, and may not have completely delivered on it.

Within advertising, very false advertsing.

#11 Posted by Scrawnto (2450 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung: Without access the code, it would be damn near impossible to prove that the game didn't have any 'technical enhancements' unless they were explicitly listed out, even if it turned out that improved framerate wasn't one of them.

#12 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it isn't. Patching the game is entirely on the developers. The developers make the game, the developers fix the game when it's broken. It's easy to understand. All publishers do is publish. You're flat out wrong here.
#13 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -
@LiquidPrince

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

Nintendo released a patch for Mario Kart 7. What are you talking about?
Online
#14 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

Anyway, boring ass "I know more about the game industry!!" bickering aside, yeah the frame rate does suck pretty bad most of the time. I don't really care though, cause I play it in pretty small doses anyway. Doesn't give it a chance to get under my skin. Plus I enjoy the game enough, I suppose.

#15 Posted by JJOR64 (18992 posts) -

Yeah, the slowdown is noticeably a lot, especially in 3D. The game is still fun though. Started using Ali and trying to get here Speed up ridiculously high.

#16 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung

@Scrawnto said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung: Without access the code, it would be damn near impossible to prove that the game didn't have any 'technical enhancements' unless they were explicitly listed out, even if it turned out that improved framerate wasn't one of them.

True. Nintendo have devices that can check code and perhaps compare code, but yea, it's a tricky one, mainly because this is a localized version and will certainly have code differences.

@MariachiMacabre said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it isn't. Patching the game is entirely on the developers. The developers make the game, the developers fix the game when it's broken. It's easy to understand. All publishers do is publish. You're flat out wrong here.

No, you are. Get back to me when you have better knowledge on this matter.

When a publisher forms a deal with a developer to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the advertising claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they truly believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.
When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin / (and any publisher involved in such circumstances). Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales and in turn their profit margin. Is that hard for you to understand?
Considering everyone else in this thread disagrees with you, I'm gonna say you should take your own advice. Publishers can't patch games unless a developer is also publishing the game. If what your saying was actually the case, Microsoft would have patched Fez.
#17 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1593 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Scrawnto said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung: Without access the code, it would be damn near impossible to prove that the game didn't have any 'technical enhancements' unless they were explicitly listed out, even if it turned out that improved framerate wasn't one of them.

True. Nintendo have devices that can check code and perhaps compare code, but yea, it's a tricky one, mainly because this is a localized version and will certainly have code differences.

What Nintendo is given for certification almost certainly doesn't include source code, and even if it did, it's not like Nintendo could look at a diff of the two versions (which would be done with a magical "device" called a "personal computer") and determine whether or not it constituted a performance improvement without doing something much more stringent and orders of magnitude more time consuming than QA.

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

When a publisher forms a business deal to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.

When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin. Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales. Is that still hard for you to understand?

We have no idea what Atlus' contract was with the developer. You're acting like the existence of a contract is proof that the contract gave Atlus the power to "demand" the developer improve the performance. That could be true, but developer statements and legally binding contracts are two completely different things. If that weren't the case, Peter Molyneux would be totally fucked.

Online
#18 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@GrantHeaslip:

Haha, I'm still stuck in the old days of carts, They have specific software they use for their approval process. It wouldn't have to be source code, retail code for both regions would be sufficient to see if there are significant changes, the PC device would do all the work in assessing these differences and what they pertain to in the game.

It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be but in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are thee root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up.

#19 Posted by VicRattlehead (1398 posts) -
@MariachiMacabre didn't Sony step in and develop a patch for the ps3 version of bayonetta even though they neither developed or published the game... I'm pretty sure atlus where responsible for the kof13 patch as well so there is some sort of precedent
#20 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung

@GrantHeaslip:

Haha, I'm still stuck in the old days of carts, They have specific software they use for their approval process. It wouldn't have to be source code, retail code for both regions would be sufficient to see if there are significant changes, the PC device would do all the work in assessing these differences and what they pertain to in the game.

It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be but in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are thee root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up.

As someone that's done certification testing at NOA, I can't say much other than you are talking out of your ass.
Online
#21 Posted by MariachiMacabre (7096 posts) -
@VicRattlehead
@MariachiMacabre didn't Sony step in and develop a patch for the ps3 version of bayonetta even though they neither developed or published the game... I'm pretty sure atlus where responsible for the kof13 patch as well so there is some sort of precedent
That may be the case but it's certainly not the norm.
#22 Posted by Dagbiker (6976 posts) -

@MariachiMacabre said:

@VicRattlehead
@MariachiMacabre didn't Sony step in and develop a patch for the ps3 version of bayonetta even though they neither developed or published the game... I'm pretty sure atlus where responsible for the kof13 patch as well so there is some sort of precedent
That may be the case but it's certainly not the norm.

And also Sony cant just make a patch to a game, they have to make sure they have the rights and, the necessary source code.

#23 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

..... wow, you sound mad.

When a publisher forms a business deal to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.

When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin. Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales. Is that still hard for you to understand?

edit:

Rubbish, there have been a total of seven patches so far on 3DS eShop, two more if you own Ambassador VC games.

Uh no. Maybe I should listen to you because apparently you know the intimate details of the contract Atlus signed. (Roll's eyes so hard they fall out)

You seem to be the one that isn't understanding what I'm saying. Atlus itself could request a patch sure, but they don't have to do anything in terms of actually creating the patch. That lies with the developer, namely Agatsuma Entertainment... Atlus's involvement only goes as far as to say "hey guys, maybe you should like, do something about that one game you made." Is that still hard for you to understand?

@Hailinel: You just blew my mind with that knowledge. Honestly had no clue they had started patching things. I mean the arcane way they handled the Zelda glitch only months before had me crying at night. Who'da thunk?

Online
#24 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@LiquidPrince: Nintendo couldn't patch Wii games because the hardware simply wasn't designed with patching in mind. However, patches can be downloaded to the 3DS pretty easily. One or two other games have also been patched, like the Japanese version of KH3D.

Online
#25 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

@Hailinel: That's cool to hear.

Online
#26 Posted by Fredchuckdave (5483 posts) -

IGN review's title for this game is priceless; it's like they use the headline generator themselves.

#27 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Hailinel said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung

@GrantHeaslip:

Haha, I'm still stuck in the old days of carts, They have specific software they use for their approval process. It wouldn't have to be source code, retail code for both regions would be sufficient to see if there are significant changes, the PC device would do all the work in assessing these differences and what they pertain to in the game.

It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be but in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are thee root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up.

As someone that's done certification testing at NOA, I can't say much other than you are talking out of your ass.

Which centre did you work at and what did your role involve exactly?. I say you are> Are you seriously saying Nintendo don't have software that can check code integrity in detail, that they cannot scan search specific areas and compare data with another source?

I worked as a temp associate tester at the NOA office in Redmond off an on from 2005 to 2007. During that span of time, I tested games in their product testing department as well as being part of their lot check certification team. And I can safely tell you that in that time, I never, ever saw anyone run any sort of magical source code scan. The job of the certification team is not to test the integrity of a game's code base. It is to test whether or not the game passes a list of requirements necessary to be allowed release. It is not Nintendo's responsibility if a third-party developer producing a game for a third-party publisher produces a game that contains framerate issues, of all things. Sony and Microsoft certification are no different in this regard.

Online
#28 Posted by evanbower (1211 posts) -
@Hailinel
@Wong_Fei_Hung

@GrantHeaslip:

Haha, I'm still stuck in the old days of carts, They have specific software they use for their approval process. It wouldn't have to be source code, retail code for both regions would be sufficient to see if there are significant changes, the PC device would do all the work in assessing these differences and what they pertain to in the game.

It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be but in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are thee root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up.

As someone that's done certification testing at NOA, I can't say much other than you are talking out of your ass.
Haha yes, this. I've been trying to express that this whole time but couldn't get it down so succinctly.
#29 Posted by LiquidPrince (15949 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung: Your right about them not wanting to put themselves in a position where they look bad. But A) I don't think from what I've seen, that this game is significantly broken and B) I doubt this game will sell that much in the first place. It seems like a niche title, much like Atlus's other games.

Online
#30 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@LiquidPrince said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

Who said they did?. As publishers of the title it's up to them.

No it's not... It's the developers of the game that patch games, not the publishers. The publishers... publish. Hence the name.

Wrong. It's publishers that have a legal right to request that a game creator develops a patch.

Legal right to request a patch? What are you talking about? I TOO have the legal RIGHT to request a patch be made. Doesn't mean it's my responsibility. Atlus can ask the developer to patch a game but Atlus itself doesn't NEED to do anything. Also this is all irrelevant because we're talking about a 3DS game, and they don't ever get patched because Nintendo.

..... wow, you sound mad.

When a publisher forms a business deal to publish a game, they have something that's known as a legally binding contract, within such publishing contracts there are requirements that both parties must accept to. Atlus, before releasing the game, made the claim the game was "technically enhanced" over the Japanese release, suggesting they believed it would be. When the game was finally released, it was soon apparent the game was not free of the problems that plagued the Japanese release.

When a game has overt technical issues, that hamper the enjoyment of both players and future sales of the product, that directly effects Atlus's revenue / profit margin. Atlus can therefore demand that the developers to work on a patch, so that it doesn't negatively effect game sales. Is that still hard for you to understand?

edit:

Rubbish, there have been a total of seven patches so far on 3DS eShop, two more if you own Ambassador VC games.

Uh no. Maybe I should listen to you because apparently you know the intimate details of the contract Atlus signed. (Roll's eyes so hard they fall out)

You seem to be the one that isn't understanding what I'm saying. Atlus itself could request a patch sure, but they don't have to do anything in terms of actually creating the patch. That lies with the developer, namely Agatsuma Entertainment... Atlus's involvement only goes as far as to say "hey guys, maybe you should like, do something about that one game you made." Is that still hard for you to understand?

@Hailinel: You just blew my mind with that knowledge. Honestly had no clue they had started patching things. I mean the arcane way they handled the Zelda glitch only months before had me crying at night. Who'da thunk?

As I said earlier to another member:

"It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be put in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are the root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up."

Why would it not be in Atlus's best interests to rectify something that hampers sales significantly?

Why would Atlus USA acquire the publishing rights in the first place if they thought that the game was broken in such a way that it would require a significant amount of effort to fix? Code of Princess plays fine, framerate issues aside.

Online
#31 Posted by mpgeist (608 posts) -

I'm enjoying the game in small doses. I'm glad the missions are short so I can just pick it up for a few minutes while travelling or whatever. As for the slowdown, yeah it really sucks. I just turn off the 3D and it helps a little bit, but it seems like they did a poor job of closing the deal.

#32 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Hailinel said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Hailinel said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung

@GrantHeaslip:

Haha, I'm still stuck in the old days of carts, They have specific software they use for their approval process. It wouldn't have to be source code, retail code for both regions would be sufficient to see if there are significant changes, the PC device would do all the work in assessing these differences and what they pertain to in the game.

It's standard procedure that a company will protect itself like this. What do you suppose would happen if they released code that was so poor sales were non-existent, do you really think Atlus would even allow themselves to be but in a position where they could do nothing?. Patches are thee root out, now common place in the industry today directly because of the way contracts are drawn up.

As someone that's done certification testing at NOA, I can't say much other than you are talking out of your ass.

Which centre did you work at and what did your role involve exactly?. I say you are> Are you seriously saying Nintendo don't have software that can check code integrity in detail, that they cannot scan search specific areas and compare data with another source?

I worked as a temp associate tester at the NOA office in Redmond off an on from 2005 to 2007. During that span of time, I tested games in their product testing department as well as being part of their lot check certification team. And I can safely tell you that in that time, I never, ever saw anyone run any sort of magical source code scan. The job of the certification team is not to test the integrity of a game's code base. It is to test whether or not the game passes a list of requirements necessary to be allowed release. It is not Nintendo's responsibility if a third-party developer producing a game for a third-party publisher produces a game that contains framerate issues, of all things. Sony and Microsoft certification are no different in this regard.

So not within Japan, and as a temp at NOA branch who are very unlike to have this kind of software. If you're role was as structed as you suggest it seems to me you would never have access to such software even if they existed in American divisions, simply because your roles would never require it. As you say, the certification process, something which I've never once raised in this thread in relation to this, has nothing to do with this, it's a checklist role, you check if software meets certain requirements, that's all you do.

Nintendo Japan on the other hand is a completely different case. Firstly, there's an old culture in Japan among the development community that relates to this. Many of their designers, including Nintendo's big names like Miyamoto, have learnt programming the old way, searching through retail code of games - it's a familiar process among many, there is a culture of looking at software in detail.

Secondly and most importantly, it's only testing facilities in Japan that would ever require the need to look at code this way, never any branch in North America. R&D and Nintendo's native testing facilities would have a plethora of testing software that can do this easily.

Japan doesn't do cert testing on North American or PAL releases. Surely, for all of your knowledge, you should be able to understand something as simple as that.

Online
#33 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung: What earlier investment? Atlus didn't publish the game in Japan.

Online
#34 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@Hailinel:

Ha, I didn't release that. My view still stands though, Atlus would have made sure there were these condition after the Japanese release.

#35 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Hailinel:

Ha, I didn't release that. My view still stands though, Atlus would have made sure there were these condition after the Japanese release.

Not necessarily. Atlus's main concern was the localization process. If any bugs could be fixed in the process of that, I'm sure that they would have wanted that, as well, but seeing as neither you nor I have access to their contractual agreement with the Japanese rights owners, the specifics can't be known for sure. Whatever the case, the game was in a state that Atlus USA saw fit to release.

Online
#36 Edited by GrantHeaslip (1593 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

So not within Japan, and as a temp at NOA branch who are very unlike to have this kind of software. If you're role was as structed as you suggest it seems to me you would never have access to such software even if they existed in American divisions, simply because your roles would never require it. As you say, the certification process, something which I've never once raised in this thread in relation to this, has nothing to do with this, it's a checklist role, you check if software meets certain requirements, that's all you do.

Nintendo Japan on the other hand is a completely different case. Firstly, there's an old culture in Japan among the development community that relates to this. Many of their designers, including Nintendo's big names like Miyamoto, have learnt programming the old way, searching through retail code of games - it's a familiar process among many, there is a culture of looking at software in detail.

Secondly and most importantly, it's only testing facilities in Japan that would ever require the need to look at code this way, never any branch in North America. R&D and Nintendo's native testing facilities would have a plethora of testing software that can do this easily.

With all due respect, you're coming off like someone who was confidently spouting bullshit, got caught, and is trying to lie your way out of it. I've never heard of certification involving code review in Japan (or anywhere, for that matter). Source code is something developers avoid sharing at all costs, especially with competitors (which Nintendo's software developers are). Reviewing the code for a modern game would take weeks -- games have hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and reading other people's code can be hell at the best of times. By all means, prove me wrong, but with actual citation.

While I'm at it, Miyamoto is an artist and game designer, not a programmer. And speaking as a working programmer, looking through other people's code isn't the "old way" of learning, it's the way of learning. It's not like Japan has some old-school apprenticeship programming mentality that's been lost in the west.

I hate to derail this topic like this, but people making stuff up about the way programming is done drives me nuts, especially given how misunderstood a profession it already is. I imagine reading made-up stuff about QA testing drives nuts.

Online
#37 Edited by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@GrantHeaslip:

You sound completely clueless on this matter. Since when is Nintendo a competitor, as platform holders they're partners : /

What make you think it takes months in this age of computing software, and when Nintendo can use their own development units to review and compare code?. Also, why are you seemingly comparing relatively small 3DS games (1Gb max - this game is around half that in size, as most 3DS games are), to that of large disc based products, which could certainly take weeks as you say:?

Wrong, Miyamoto learnt BASIC programming while studying music, it was via music that he learnt programming. Nintendo's Iwata learnt programming this way also.

Who said it was some Japanese only club also?. Japan's development community have long had a culture of looking at software in this manner and continue to, in the West you look at code in a class these days. The culture that was around in the 70's has long eroded for the most part, you don't look at retail software.

#38 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@GrantHeaslip:

You sound completely clueless on this matter. Since when is Nintendo a competitor, as platform holders they're partners : /

What make you think it takes months in this age of computing software, and when Nintendo can use their own development units to review and compare code?.

Wrong, Miyamoto learnt basic programming while studying music, it was via music that he learnt programming Nintendo's Iwata learnt progamming this way also.

Who said it was some Japanese only club also?. Japan's development community have long had a culture of looking at software in this manner and continue to, in the West you look at code in a class these days, that culture has long eroded for the most part.

Nintendo produces their own game software, making them a competitor for game sales to all other publishers that produce games for their platforms. While there is a certain amount of partnership involved, at the end of the day, games like Code of Princess still have to fight for sales against the likes of Mario and Zelda. Further, why would Nintendo use their own development resources in the certification process of third-party titles? Certification is a QA effort on Nintendo's end.

Regardless of whether or not Miyamoto knows how to program, he is not employed by Nintendo as a programmer. He started at the company as an artist and game designer. Unless I am mistaken, he is not credited as a programmer in any game that he has ever been involved in.

And you failed to follow through on GrantHeaslip's request for citation in your argument.

Online
#39 Edited by ahgunsillyo (450 posts) -

Well, this thread is certainly fun to read.

Based on my admittedly somewhat limited skill and knowledge of programming, I'm going to put forth that even if one was to directly compare two sets of source code (like the Japanese and English versions of Code of Princess) and find the differences between them, it would still be rather tricky to come to a conclusion as to whether the differences in the code do truly make "enhancements" like better framerate. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there wouldn't just be a block of code that has a little pseudocode note that says

// fixes framerate problem

and just up and fixes the framerate problem, but rather there would be a lot of changes to a lot of other lines of code that would, when compiled and run in conjunction with the rest of the code, then produce better performance.

But again, my skill with programming is a bit limited and I have no experience with game development, so I could be completely and utterly wrong.

Also, can somebody tell me if the game is still worth playing despite its framerate issues? I do like brawlers and the game appears to have a sense of humor and charm that I could potentially enjoy. @Hailinel, since you've had a pretty prominent presence in this thread and appear to have played the game at least enough to know how it runs, what are your thoughts on the game?

#40 Posted by Hailinel (24807 posts) -

@ahgunsillyo: I've put maybe three hours into it, and while I haven't touched the multiplayer at all yet, it's pretty fun. It's a very silly game in terms of its plot and characters with some fourth-wall breaking dialogue and absurd personalities on display. It's pretty easy to pick up, play a few missions, and put down again, as well, since none of the ones I've come across thus far last for more than a few minutes. I'd really like to give the multiplayer a try at some point, because while the single-player content allows for use of four to eight characters (depending on the mode), there is a ridiculous selection of characters and monsters available in multiplayer.

But basically, the game is a beat'em up where you go on missions, beat dudes up, level up, collect and buy loot, and repeat the process. Missions range from taking out all enemies and defeating bosses to defending specific characters and defeating a certain number of enemies under a time limit. Stages also consist of multiple "planes" where you're restricted to moving left/right, but can hope up and down between planes to avoid enemies or take on different groups. The characters I've played as also play very differently from one another, and the leveling system is pretty flexible, particularly once you get in deep enough and have put a lot of points into the characters.

If this sounds appealing, particularly against the backdrop of absurdist anime-style fantasy, then I'd give it a recommendation. I could probably go more in-depth, but I have unfortunately got to go to bed.

Online
#41 Edited by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@GrantHeaslip:

You sound completely clueless on this matter. Since when is Nintendo a competitor, as platform holders they're partners : /

What make you think it takes months in this age of computing software, and when Nintendo can use their own development units to review and compare code?.

Wrong, Miyamoto learnt basic programming while studying music, it was via music that he learnt programming Nintendo's Iwata learnt progamming this way also.

Who said it was some Japanese only club also?. Japan's development community have long had a culture of looking at software in this manner and continue to, in the West you look at code in a class these days, that culture has long eroded for the most part.

Nintendo produces their own game software, making them a competitor for game sales to all other publishers that produce games for their platforms. While there is a certain amount of partnership involved, at the end of the day, games like Code of Princess still have to fight for sales against the likes of Mario and Zelda. Further, why would Nintendo use their own development resources in the certification process of third-party titles? Certification is a QA effort on Nintendo's end.

Regardless of whether or not Miyamoto knows how to program, he is not employed by Nintendo as a programmer. He started at the company as an artist and game designer. Unless I am mistaken, he is not credited as a programmer in any game that he has ever been involved in.

And you failed to follow through on GrantHeaslip's request for citation in your argument.

Nintendo have nothing to learn at the programming end from such developers.

Perhaps because a developer makes false claims about their product, pertaining to quality?

Who said he was?!. It has very little to do with this, I merely mentioned him because he's one of many designers at Nintendo that have learnt in this way - looking through retail software and copying complete code in BASIC.

it won't be forthcoming, it's a nonsensical request, I don't disagree, I've never said it would be easy, but then I didn't say it wasn't possible. 3DS games are relatively small in size, yet he seemingly compares them with much larger games made today, which could well take weeks. This game is around 512mb, as most 3DS game are.

You can compare the code, get an idea of how much the code differs, but whether you can pin-point the exact changes that relate to a certain things in game, without the aid of the developer, is unknown. I would hazard a guess it depends on the skill of any programmer reviewing the code, in addition to the software being used.

edit:

I don't doubt Nintendo have both the software, and the programmers who can recognize such code written for their own platform.

#42 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1593 posts) -

@ahgunsillyo said:

Well, this thread is certainly fun to read.

Based on my admittedly somewhat limited skill and knowledge of programming, I'm going to put forth that even if one was to directly compare two sets of source code (like the Japanese and English versions of Code of Princess) and find the differences between them, it would still be rather tricky to come to a conclusion as to whether the differences in the code do truly make "enhancements" like better framerate. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that there wouldn't just be a block of code that has a little pseudocode note that says

// fixes framerate problem

and just up and fixes the framerate problem, but rather there would be a lot of changes to a lot of other lines of code that would, when compiled and run in conjunction with the rest of the code, then produce better performance.

I'm a web developer, so I can't speak specifically to game programming either, but yeah, that's basically what I was thinking. If there were an easy patchable way of fixing this, it would probably have been done well before release. It sounds to me like they just bit off more than they could chew, and maybe didn't see the late-development performance increases they were expecting.

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

What make you think it takes months in this age of computing software, and when Nintendo can use their own development units to review and compare code?.

What is a "development unit"? You write code and run diffs on a computer, not this magical device you keep referring to. You haven't even established that there's code they could look at, and given the evidence to the contrary, the burden of proof is on you here.

Wrong, Miyamoto learnt BASIC programming while studying music, it was via music that he learnt programming. Nintendo's Iwata learnt programming this way also.

Okay, he learned some coding, but that doesn't make him a programmer, and as @Hailinel said, he's not credited as one.

Who said it was some Japanese only club also?. Japan's development community have long had a culture of looking at software in this manner and continue to, in the West you look at code in a class these days. The culture that was around in the 70's has long eroded for the most part, you don't look at retail software.

You're not giving me any citation on any of this. I'm not going to pretend I'm an expert on Japanese programming (and I'd advise you do the same), but I have read about it, and I've never heard of this.

And yes, we (including Japan, though probably less so because of the language barrier) do look at production software, perhaps more so than ever before. Open source software -- maybe you've heard of it? For example, from my understanding of the innards of Giant Bomb, basically every library and piece of software involved in running it (down to the Linux server it's almost definitely running on) is fully open source.

Online
#43 Posted by Wong_Fei_Hung (642 posts) -

@GrantHeaslip:

Refer to my above post.

#44 Posted by GrantHeaslip (1593 posts) -
@Wong_Fei_Hung I have, and it doesn't change anything. You're continuing to spout about stuff you clearly don't fully understand. You can't just make specific factual claims that contradict common knowledge and refuse to back them up with anything resembling evidence -- this isn't a presidential election :).
Online
#45 Posted by Freshbandito (686 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung: Good lord, just back down and admit you were wrong/lying. Who are you trying to convince here? people have repeatedly given evidence and firsthand experience disproving what you say and all you can come up with is some theoretical magic device that reads code and says "will produce bad framerate issues" on the other end.

Just man up and admit you were wrong, people won't think less of you if you do, they'll think less of you if you carry on your ridiculous argument.

#46 Edited by TruthTellah (9091 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@RainVillain said:

At first I wasn't sure if it was Zelda-style where the game stylishly freezes for a millisecond when you strike something, or if it was just a bad framerate, but now I'm pretty sure it's a mix of both.

It's really weird and, imo, kinda jarring. I think I'm done with this title.

I don't mean to totally bash the game. The music is great and the look of the game is fantastic. The combat seems to have a fair bit of depth and hits feel good, but the slowdown is just really bugging me.

Does it get any better? =/

I can understand how you feel. I think Atlus should feel obliged to release a patch, reason being one of the things they lauded about this western version was it's "technical enhancements" - primarily pertaining to the frame-rate issues the Japanese version had. It's supposed to be worse... There's a couple of threads on atlus.com that are worth posting in. I think Nintendo are partly to blame also, they should raise the CPU clocks higher, I can think of a few games that need it. I'd email them also, they cleared this game for release.

They should fix it, no question / (Atlus)

I can understand your frustration, Wong, but Atlus didn't create any "technical enhancements" and they wouldn't be able to release any patch. That's what people here have been talking about. The Japanese developer supposedly made minor improvements to the code to improve the frame rate, but as the OP brought up, the frame rate is still poor. So, the frame rate appears to have went from kinda bad to still bad. But that doesn't stop the game from being functional or even enjoyable for many.

If you want to be angry at Atlus, that's fine. They shouldn't have boasted about technical enhancements to the frame rate when there were apparently only minor improvements. Though, they can't release a patch now; they can only request that the original Japanese developer release a patch to further improve the frame rate. Unfortunately, the way they made it, there may not be much more they can do for the frame rate. Though, for those with the game, here's hoping there is still room for some improvement.

On Nintendo, this isn't really on their QA department. The game is complete-able, and some people actually enjoy it. It was released overseas because Nintendo's overseas offices deemed it to fit their requirements of a functional game on the platform. Someone might think it's garbage, but it would still be functional garbage. They didn't tinker with the code of the game or request that the game be better; they only required that it be functional with all the necessary parts of a game for the platform. The game fits their requirements for release, and Nintendo isn't responsible for a game being good or poor. They may establish high testing standards, but if a game fits those standards of functionality, it will get released. The issues with its quality are on the developer.

So, if you think the frame rate issues in the game are bad enough, ask Atlus to ask the original developer to improve it further. The original developer doesn't have to listen or do anything more if they don't want to, but perhaps they'll want to help out overseas gamers enjoy the game even more. That's a fine hope to have.

Online
#47 Posted by Freshbandito (686 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Freshbandito:

They have done nothing of the sort. Where is this "evidence" and "first-hand experience" you speak of?.

called you out on the testing/cert process and cited having actually worked the job, other people who've actually done programming work have described how code works. Now stop trying to demonise other people's evidence and present your own, you are the dissenting opinion here and the burden of proof is on you.

All in the meanwhile you're veering wildly away from the entire point of the thread which you subverted with your crazy supposition that this is all somehow Atlus' problem, multiple times now you've been proven wrong on something you've said only to round on those who've called you out on it and then fire off some other completely baseless comment skewing the argument on another tangent then being proved wrong there, Just give up, as an outsider looking in you look like an old man screaming at traffic.

#48 Posted by ahgunsillyo (450 posts) -

Again, I am by no means an expert at programming, nor have I any experience with game development, but from what I've read, even though a game is relatively small (like in the case of a 3DS game compared to a larger disc-based game for the 360 or PS3), that does not necessarily mean it won't take weeks for a person or team of people to analyze. For example, a relatively simple Flash game can be comprised of anywhere from thousands to even hundreds of thousands of lines of code (if the developers on this thread are to be believed, at least).

Now, considering that in the situation that is being presented, i.e. a person from Nintendo or Atlus analyzing the source code of a game created by the developers at Anagatsuma Entertainment, these thousands of lines (at least) of code are being handed to strangers who go into it having no idea how that code operates, it might actually take them a while to decipher what in the code corresponds to what, and what each class and method and whatnot does and how they all work together to make the game run, let alone figure out whether or not the various differences in two slightly different sets of code for the same game actually result in better performance (like framerate) like what is being put forth by the discussion in this thread.

Now, let's think about if Nintendo or Atlus has this procedure as part of their certification process for games. If they do this for a game like Code of Princess, they would theoretically do this for every game that comes their way. After all, every developer should be able to claim that the game that they made at least works as it should and is functional and has a specific set of features, so if that is the case, then these publishers should have to check that these claims are true, or else they would be falsely advertising their game, which could result in an adverse hit in game sales, profits, and revenue. This means that, in addition to doing this for Code of Princess, they would have to do so for larger, disc-based console games like Demon's Souls and Catherine. This would be a much bigger issue for Nintendo, since they would probably have to do this for literally every game from every publisher that releases a game on their multiple systems. Considering how many games are released on these platforms every year, and how long it may take for a person or group of people to analyze a single game like that, it probably would take up more time of many employees than would be cost-effective.

This is likely why publishers and places like Nintendo have a certification process that consists of a process like what @Hailinel mentioned where they play through and test out a piece of software and make sure it meets a certain criteria before they approve that it can "go gold" and be released for sale.

#49 Posted by TruthTellah (9091 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@Freshbandito:

I could just a easily say I'm a Nintendo employee also!, lol.

As I said in reply to him, he wouldn't know if he was indeed a temp like he says he was, it would only be Nintendo facilities in Japan that would have such testing programs, simply because there is no need to ever have them in America.

Wrong, I've implied it's an all party issue throughout, that's very clear in my first post on this thread.

If you are an alt, like a strongly suspect you are, you will be found out - there is software for this also.

I really do feel for you on your frustration over feeling like Atlus mislead you on their claims about how technically enhanced the game is, but come on.

Using amorphous "software" as a catch-all answer throughout this discussion just sounds nuts.

Online
#50 Posted by MideonNViscera (2257 posts) -

@Wong_Fei_Hung said:

@TruthTellah:

I don't, and don't even own the game ; /

Then quit derailing threads about it with your know it all bullshit.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.