Tyrrael's forum posts

#1 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

I know there is a general thread about thoughts on the Destiny Beta already, but I wanted to see how people's experiences have been directly regarding the performance/stability of the beta. I know this is just a beta, and most (I'm hoping) of any problems people are having will be ironed out by launch, but I was still interested to hear how it's been for people.

I want to know about any crashes or network issues people are having, and I would also be interested to hear how the game performs on the various platforms. I'm interested in the technical aspect here, not opinions on other factors, like gun designs, story, or how much you like the multiplayer maps (unless particular maps run worse/better than others, then by all means, let me know).

My experience has been generally good on the PS4. I've played every day since the beta started, minus the Monday it was down, of course, and it's been good overall. The only major problem I had happened today. I had a couple of instances where it just booted me straight out of the game to the main title screen and gave me a network error message. I happily got it up and running in just a few more minutes, but it was really weird. Up until this point, it's been running silky smooth everyday, then it does this out of nowhere. It could be because there are probably more people logged on now, but there are probably going to be a lot more when the game releases, so I hope it was just a fluke. Again, I know it's a beta. I'm just telling of my experiences. I'm not bashing it here, and I still plan on buying it on release.

From a performance standpoint, it's been pretty solid on the PS4. The frame rate only starts to noticeably dip when there are a ton of enemies and/or effects on the screen at once. So, aside from the two crashes, and some minor frame rate dips, it's been pretty solid, and I'm betting Bungie will probably have a lot of the technical problems fixed by launch. (or at least I hope so)

#2 Edited by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

This is probably too little too late, but does anyone have a spare Xbox 360 code? I was going to give it to one of my friends, that I haven't talked to in a little while. I don't think he knows the Beta is out, and I figured I'd surprise him so he can play for the last few days. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.

Please PM me if you have one, so that I can take it and give him the code tomorrow. Thanks.

#3 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

I got an 8, with the problem area being in the greens, which seems like the most common area for people to have trouble. Age: 20-29

#4 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

Generally, anything under 10ms is ideal. Just keep in mind that, like I said before, having a low pixel response time isn't automatically going to guarantee a smooth picture. If you have your eye on a particular TV, it's always a good idea to do a little research to see how it fares in real world use, rather than just relying on the raw numbers. There may be a TV out there that has a higher pixel response time than some other comparable TVs but still performs better. Just use my under 10ms reference as more of a guideline than a flat out rule.

All things considered, I would definitely look at input lag first and foremost, because since you're going to use this TV for gaming, then having an input lag near the triple digits is going to make basically every game unplayable. Like I said, under 30ms is ideal, but if it goes a little over that, it's probably not going to matter much. However, if you see it go above 50ms, I would play it safe and stay away. There are some people that can handle it that high, but a lot of people, especially those that play a lot of fast paced games, are going to start to notice it, and it'll interfere with the gameplay.

#5 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

@stackvibe: I don't want to overcomplicate this, but while pixel response time is a factor in the ghosting effect, often called motion blur, but it is not the only factor. I won't get into details (if you want to research it further, you can), but a poor quality monitor/TV with good pixel response time, say 5ms, could still have a considerable amount of the blurring effect. My TV does have a bit of motion blur, but it's something that pretty much every TV is going to have, at least to an extent, unless you want to spend more money to get one that has less blurring, or get a plasma which usually has less blurring overall. On a side note, plasmas are often better than LCDs about motion blur, but they can still suffer from extremely terrible input lag. So, still be careful if you are considering getting a plasma. Having a smooth picture isn't going to mean shit if you have nearly 100ms of input lag.

Also, I just want to clarify something. I rarely hear the term "HD lag". Input lag and HD lag both refer to the delay between the time you press a button on the controller to the time it takes the TV to display it. Just a helpful hint, I would try to use the term "input lag" from now on, because it is much more common and will help reduce confusion. I was actually a little confused at first as to what you meant, however, I understand what you mean now, and the answer is essentially a yes. Reducing the input lag time will reduce the lag between the controller and it displaying on the HDTV.

Hope this helps.

#6 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

@damodar: So i see the lowest possible one on the list is 09ms. I assume that would have no hd lag since the rating is excellent and is as good as it gets on that list but what is the highest possible ms you can have that will not experience HD lag. Does anyone know. I wanna know what range i should be looking at. Also i was checking pretty inexpensive monitors on best buy and some of them said 2ms. Is that referring to something else entirely since a number as low as 2 isnt even mentioned on this list.

When you shop for monitors, most places, Best Buy included, are going to include what is called pixel response time. That is what the 2ms is referring to. This is how long it takes the pixels on the monitor to change. Most are under 10ms, and it's not difficult to find ones that have 2ms or even 1ms, as you just saw. The "lag" you are talking about is often called input lag. This is the time it takes from when you push a button or move a stick on the controller to when that action is display on the screen. Most monitors have good pixel response time and input lag these days, whereas a lot of TVs have decent pixel response time but poor input lag ratings. If you're looking to buy a TV for gaming on a console, then 30ms or less is ideal. I recently bought an LG 32" LN5300 TV, which has input lag in the 20ms range, and I don't notice it at all. Also, the reason that a lot of people say that you want lower input lag on a PC monitor than a TV is because you use a mouse with a PC, and input lag is often more noticeable to more people when using a mouse since it doesn't have that smooth 1 to 1 feel when moving it, even when using the PC for things other than gaming.

#7 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

The Order: 1886 is looking pretty damn good. I really hope it turns out be as good as it looks, because if it does, it could be a system seller. I'm trying not to get too hyped, but it just looks incredible so far. Also, Destiny...of course.

#8 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

The general public and their intrinsic shittiness.

#9 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

@humanity said:

Most recently it was Wolfenstein New Order.

Don't get me wrong I thought the game itself was really good but all the technical issues I had with it really soured me on the entire experience and to a certain degree PC gaming overall.

I don't think I ever felt as powerless as when I was sitting there, the game just refusing to work, the money gone from my pocket and quite literally nothing I could do about any of it.

This is the primary reason why I mainly play on consoles rather than PC. I don't have anything against people that play primarily on PC, but there's always a much higher possibility that whatever game I buy may simply refuse to work on my system. For that reason, I seldom buy a game at full price, even if I'm super excited for it. In the end, though, Steam sales are a good way to at least try to get some games you want while mitigating the damage done to your bank account if they don't work.

#10 Posted by Tyrrael (152 posts) -

I remember when I was about 8-10 I walked into the women's restroom at a baseball game. I walked in and about 5+ women and their daughters, or so I'm assuming immediately looked at me. I about shit my pants right there, and ran out the door and into the men's restroom. Not only did I feel bad about doing it, but I also remember thinking that I was going to be in a lot of trouble and go to jail or something, since even at that age, I knew that going into the women's restroom was a no-no.

Also, I've got to ask what I'm betting everyone here is thinking (well, the men anyways). Was the naked lady rubbing lotion on herself hot? I've just got to know.