#1 Posted by Metal_Mills (3031 posts) -

People have been complaining that this game has been running terribly even on high end machines. Slow downs, bad frame rate, stuttering, huge load times, capped @ 30fps with v-sync. So what does the developer say? 
 
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showthread.php?577556-Can-we-expect-a-performance-increase-for-full-game-later-patches&p=13267880&viewfull=1#post13267880

 

About the "24+ FPS is too low" and it is "bad performance" issue:
It is not bad performance and not too low. If it gets below 20 FPS than it is bad performance. 24 FPS is what a human eye sees as fluid and you watch the films in the cinema with 24 FPS – do you go to cinema again and again to see bad performance and horribly low FPS?

Where you need a higher FPS are mainly the action games, particularly if you play them in multiplayer.

Generally our aim was to set the game to 24+FPS, of course after the graphical settings have been set to the specific hardware (this is what the Auto Setup does – it also recognizes other issues like driver problems and such, so if you think that the auto setup has set you lower results than your hardware would deserve, there are most likely some problems in your rig that you should find)

 
What a joke. So you can run BF3 on ultra but not this even half decently, ah good enough!
#2 Posted by Commisar123 (1798 posts) -

That seems pretty silly

#3 Posted by Turambar (6842 posts) -

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine as no one plays it zoomed down watching the animation of individual unit.  But going out and saying it like that is kind of a boneheaded move.

#4 Posted by ch3burashka (5175 posts) -

Some games run efficiently, some don't. It depends on the developer whether or not they invest the time and resources into making the game run as well as possible. When you're buying a product, you're signing yourself up for the experience as is, and are at the whim of the developer for updates. Most of the time, developers treat their customers right and take all the feedback, process it, and put out a patch. When developers start convincing the customers that they're wrong, that's when I lose respect for them. We've been over this countless times: the customer is right, especially when it comes to something as measurable and comparable as performance. Quit fucking around and patch it. Or don't. Do what you will, just don't fucking go on your own forums and tell people that 24 FPS is "good" and then doing the douche thing and making the dumb movie comparison and saying, "See, you're already used to this! Give us a break, guys! Shut up!". Ugh.

#5 Posted by Metal_Mills (3031 posts) -
@Turambar said:
For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
#6 Posted by Itwastuesday (981 posts) -

How delusional can you get? This must be that phenomenon where a team works on a game for so long they can no longer tell if it's good or bad, only taken to the extreme.

#7 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -

@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:
For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.

But is the fps count important enough to impact victory or defeat in this game?

#8 Edited by RIDEBIRD (1233 posts) -

That statement, when I saw it, made me regret my pre-order instantly. Didn't have time to cancel it. Stuck with this unplayable fucking game that their incompetent coders probably never will fix..

#9 Posted by AlexW00d (6382 posts) -

Paradox make great games that are always marred by shit like this. Damn you Paradox, damn you.

#10 Posted by AhmadMetallic (18954 posts) -

lol

#11 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

Oh god...people that say 24fps is fine for games because it is for movies are really dumb, it's kind of shameful it's coming from a developer.

fuuuuu

Do people remember playing GTA IV on console? That used to drop to 25 and below quite often, it really impacted my enjoyment of the game!

#12 Edited by Turambar (6842 posts) -
@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
Hence why I say games of that type.  BF3 and Witcher 2 are both not a game of the Total War variety.  Again, people don't actually play a Total War style game down close to the ground.  You play it as the eye in the sky where your individual units are tiny and whether they are moving at 30 or 60 fps both does not matter, nor is all that noticeable.
 
It's like saying a game like Advance Wars needs to have zero input lag.  It'd be nice if it did, but it hardly matter compared to, say, Bayonetta.
#13 Posted by Rattle618 (1463 posts) -

Fuck, this is the first game all over again. I was excited about it and then it turned out to be kind of lame and not work properly so I lost interest.

#14 Posted by deathstriker666 (1337 posts) -

You know, I can appreciate this guy's honestly. It's just confirmation that his team doesn't give a fuck about optimization and about providing the player with the best experience possible. They can get away with shit like this and blame the low sales on Internet Piracy. Fuck this game

#15 Posted by Tennmuerti (8172 posts) -
  • cater to a niche audience
  • piss them off
  • ...
  • profit?
#16 Posted by Lagaroth (171 posts) -

Well, he saved me $40 so I guess I'm happy.

#17 Posted by CaptainCody (1518 posts) -

@Hailinel said:

@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:
For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.

But is the fps count important enough to impact victory or defeat in this game?

Not in the slightest.

#18 Posted by BitterAlmond (401 posts) -

@Sooty said:

Oh god...people that say 24fps is fine for games because it is for movies are really dumb, it's kind of shameful it's coming from a developer.

fuuuuu

Do people remember playing GTA IV on console? That used to drop to 25 and below quite often, it really impacted my enjoyment of the game!

Do people remember GTAIV on the PC? It flew around wildly between 60+ FPS and less than 10 on my machine. And Liberty City Stories was only worse. King Arthur II is wonderfully stable by comparison.

#19 Edited by Superfriend (1578 posts) -

"24 FPS is what a human eye sees as fluid and you watch the films in the cinema with 24 FPS..."

That is the sort of argument made by people who have no idea what videogames are about. You know, this thing called "interaction"? Granted, King Arthur doesn´t exactly strike me as an action oriented game (it ain´t one, right?) but still.. what a crappy excuse for bad performance.

Dude should play games at 60+ frames and tell me he can´t feel/see the difference. A higher framerate is just easier on the eyes. As soon as something scrolls or you have navigation in 3D space, your framerate better be high.

#20 Posted by Sooty (8082 posts) -

I don't think anybody would argue against GTA IV being horrible on PC. That game was a mess on every platform, sloppy performance across the board.

#21 Edited by NaDannMaGoGo (338 posts) -
#22 Edited by WilltheMagicAsian (1547 posts) -

@Superfriend said:

"24 FPS is what a human eye sees as fluid and you watch the films in the cinema with 24 FPS..."

That is the sort of argument made by people who have no idea what videogames are about. You know, this thing called "interaction"? Granted, King Arthur doesn´t exactly strike me as an action oriented game (it ain´t one, right?) but still.. what a crappy excuse for bad performance.

Dude should play games at 60+ frames and tell me he can´t feel/see the difference. A higher framerate is just easier on the eyes. As soon as something scrolls or you have navigation in 3D space, your framerate better be high.

Until video games can match the motion blur produced by film, I don't think 24FPS will ever look fluid on a game. There are games that come close like Crytek's motion blur. Playing Crysis Warhead and even Crysis 2 at 60 FPS with their motion blur on, felt like I was on my CRT playing games at 100hz again. But inputs still feel like shit below like 50~ FPS with a mouse.

#23 Edited by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
Those are nowhere near as demanding on the system mate.  I think you have unrealistic expectations of what a large scale RTS with procedural IK based animations, physics, modern rendering techniques and complex AI can do performance wise on 2.5Ghz machines.
 
@NaDannMaGoGo said:

For topics like this I always feel obligated to link to stuff likes this: http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

Also, the Dev who said that deserves to be punched in the face, god what a punch of shit.


The dev was referring to cinema being smooth to the naked eye and it is.  100hz is smoother, obviously but cinema and 24frames/sec is pretty standard and has been for almost 50 years.
#24 Posted by Rohok (554 posts) -

Really I don't notice anything above 15 FPS. People who whine when their FPS is below 30 or 60 FPS is either just spoiled or nitpicky as fuck.

#25 Posted by amir90 (2178 posts) -

He doesn't know shit about how eyes work, fuck him.

#26 Posted by Napalm (9020 posts) -
@Hailinel said:

@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:
For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.

But is the fps count important enough to impact victory or defeat in this game?

Is it a fighting game? No? Then the FPS is irrelevant.
#27 Posted by GS_Dan (1406 posts) -

@NaDannMaGoGo: That's what I usually reference, you beat me to it!

#28 Posted by twigger89 (282 posts) -

@Rohok said:

Really I don't notice anything above 15 FPS. People who whine when their FPS is below 30 or 60 FPS is either just spoiled or nitpicky as fuck.

You sir are dumb. Or you have a serious eye condition that you should get checked out immediately. Or you are dumb AND have a serious eye condition.

Choose carefully...

#29 Posted by Metal_Mills (3031 posts) -
@SeriouslyNow said:
@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
Those are nowhere near as demanding on the system mate.  I think you have unrealistic expectations of what a large scale RTS with procedural IK based animations, physics, modern rendering techniques and complex AI can do performance wise on 2.5Ghz machines.
 
Large scale? You mean like Shogun 2? That runs at 60fps?
#30 Edited by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Metal_Mills said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine
Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
Those are nowhere near as demanding on the system mate.  I think you have unrealistic expectations of what a large scale RTS with procedural IK based animations, physics, modern rendering techniques and complex AI can do performance wise on 2.5Ghz machines.
 
Large scale? You mean like Shogun 2? That runs at 60fps?
Hey, I'm not arguing that it's perfect by any means I was just pointing out that you were judging one type of game via the lens of two others which aren't similar in terms of demands.  Paradox have a pretty sketchy history when it comes to updates but even Shogun 2 wasn't smooth when it first launched either.
#31 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

@twigger89 said:

@Rohok said:

Really I don't notice anything above 15 FPS. People who whine when their FPS is below 30 or 60 FPS is either just spoiled or nitpicky as fuck.

You sir are dumb. Or you have a serious eye condition that you should get checked out immediately. Or you are dumb AND have a serious eye condition.

Choose carefully...

I can play games at any FPS above 15. Sounds like it's not me that has any serious condition but people like you who throw a fit and cry when the FPS is 23. My PC has never been top of the line, but I can run Crysis on maximum settings at like 15 - 20 FPS. That to me is fine, I can kick ass in multiplayer and have a lot of fun in singleplayer. I know how to adapt. People just need to relax and play the game if they like it for what it is, instead of getting upset over an FPS that's not above 30. My point was that people get bogged down over stupid shit and lose sight of what the game is really about.

I'm neither dumb nor afflicted by any serious eye conditions, I just know how to adapt and handle MINOR inconveniences and don't let them bog down my gaming experience. 25 FPS IS minor.

#32 Edited by Sooty (8082 posts) -
@Rohok said:

@twigger89 said:

@Rohok said:

Really I don't notice anything above 15 FPS. People who whine when their FPS is below 30 or 60 FPS is either just spoiled or nitpicky as fuck.

You sir are dumb. Or you have a serious eye condition that you should get checked out immediately. Or you are dumb AND have a serious eye condition.

Choose carefully...

I can play games at any FPS above 15. Sounds like it's not me that has any serious condition but people like you who throw a fit and cry when the FPS is 23. My PC has never been top of the line, but I can run Crysis on maximum settings at like 15 - 20 FPS. That to me is fine, I can kick ass in multiplayer and have a lot of fun in singleplayer. I know how to adapt. People just need to relax and play the game if they like it for what it is, instead of getting upset over an FPS that's not above 30. My point was that people get bogged down over stupid shit and lose sight of what the game is really about.

I'm neither dumb nor afflicted by any serious eye conditions, I just know how to adapt and handle MINOR inconveniences and don't let them bog down my gaming experience. 25 FPS IS minor.

Crysis is a rather unique case, it feels smoother than most games do at 20 FPS, likely due to the motion blur. Go and play Unreal Tournament 3 on PC at 20 FPS. It is unplayable, even 40 FPS on that game makes it feel janky as fuck.  
  
Saying you don't notice anything above 15 is either a flat out lie, or you do have eye problems. The difference between 15 and 30 is night and day, the difference between 30 and 60 is also night and day. I really do not understand how you cannot see anything above 15. That is worrying. 
 
Try this, the difference in smoothness between these 3 is exactly what I experience when playing games.  http://boallen.com/fps-compare.html 
 
30 FPS is more than playable, 60 FPS is a luxury that I like having. I'm not getting all elitist about framerates here, if your game runs at 15-25 then that is just not acceptable and is not a pleasant experience. Framerate issues and fluctuation are frustrating.

@SeriouslyNow

said:

@Metal_Mills said:

@SeriouslyNow said:

@Metal_Mills said:

@Turambar said:

For a game of this type, I'd actually agree that some like 30 fps is perfectly fine

Not when you're using a machine that runs BF3 and Witcher 2 at 60fps.
Those are nowhere near as demanding on the system mate.  I think you have unrealistic expectations of what a large scale RTS with procedural IK based animations, physics, modern rendering techniques and complex AI can do performance wise on 2.5Ghz machines.
 
Large scale? You mean like Shogun 2? That runs at 60fps?
Hey, I'm not arguing that it's perfect by any means I was just pointing out that you were judging one type of game via the lens of two others which aren't similar in terms of demands.  Paradox have a pretty sketchy history when it comes to updates but even Shogun 2 wasn't smooth when it first launched either.
It was? That game has been silky smooth for me since launch, I even put my CPU back down to the stock 2.6Ghz when it was hot last summer and it still performed just fine. i5 quad, 4GB RAM, GTX 470.
#33 Edited by Rohok (554 posts) -

Honestly it's premature to think the devs for King Arthur 2 won't fix the problem. The first King Arthur game was awesome and most Paradox publications are fine-tuned within a few months of release. Granted finished products upon release should be the industry standard but that's never the case, I'm just happy to get a real sequel period in this industry where console ports and simplified games come in and fart all over a series. Rainbow Six Lockdown/Vegas and SupCom 2 come to mind.

#34 Posted by twigger89 (282 posts) -

@Rohok said:

@twigger89 said:

@Rohok said:

Really I don't notice anything above 15 FPS. People who whine when their FPS is below 30 or 60 FPS is either just spoiled or nitpicky as fuck.

You sir are dumb. Or you have a serious eye condition that you should get checked out immediately. Or you are dumb AND have a serious eye condition.

Choose carefully...

I can play games at any FPS above 15. Sounds like it's not me that has any serious condition but people like you who throw a fit and cry when the FPS is 23. My PC has never been top of the line, but I can run Crysis on maximum settings at like 15 - 20 FPS. That to me is fine, I can kick ass in multiplayer and have a lot of fun in singleplayer. I know how to adapt. People just need to relax and play the game if they like it for what it is, instead of getting upset over an FPS that's not above 30. My point was that people get bogged down over stupid shit and lose sight of what the game is really about.

I'm neither dumb nor afflicted by any serious eye conditions, I just know how to adapt and handle MINOR inconveniences and don't let them bog down my gaming experience. 25 FPS IS minor.

Name a multiplayer shooter for the PC where you are NOT at a disadvantage for having a lower FPS. A lot of people actually lower the settings for multiplayer games just to get a steady 60 FPS. You can make an FPS that runs fine at 30 FPS, but the game has to be designed around it, and they tend to be slower, more methodical shooters. Fast paced shooters (like UT 2004, COD, BF2/3 Quake, etc etc) are meant to be played at 60 FPS, and those that play it below it are at a reasonable disadvantage.

I understand that this is the internet and people like to think their opinions are sacrosanct, but what you said was factually correct. The majority of gamers notice sub 30 FPS in the majority of games. You can be an outlier and there is nothing wrong with that, but your anecdotal evidence goes against the established (with facts) mindset.

#35 Posted by Spoonman671 (4747 posts) -

People should probably throw a fit about it.

#36 Edited by Veektarius (4968 posts) -

@Metal_Mills said:

Large scale? You mean like Shogun 2? That runs at 60fps?

This is an excellent point. Why are people worrying about this when Fall of the Samurai is out?

#37 Edited by makari (600 posts) -

I think this complaint is more based around a bunch of people paying a lot of money for a PC and having a game not take advantage of what they paid for outside of the game more than the actual quality of the game itself. I'd bet if people turned off their fraps overlays then they'd be having fun right about now.

#38 Posted by BDK (2 posts) -

Must be a bunch of blind developers if they cannot tell the difference between 24fps and 60. Also note that movies and television shows use a specific blurring technique to artificially make it look smooth while games do not (nor would you want them to). Based on that fact, it's clear as day the developers at Neocore are beyond stupid.

#39 Posted by Hailinel (25201 posts) -

The randomness of these recent necroposts is just weird.

#40 Posted by ArtisanBreads (3961 posts) -

Neocore was just waiting to finally be told off for this though.