So according to the BBC, CoD: Ghosts suffers from dips in frame-rate. That's the title.
The subheading is "Reviews of the latest Call of Duty video game have reported problems with the graphics on the PlayStation 4 edition of the title."
Two different problems. But there's no distinction. Framerate drops happen when there's a bit too much going on on your screen. Michael-Bayish explosions, enemy swarms, grenade blasts, whatever.
Because it's a lot for the machine to process at one time, the game may lag a bit. When this happens, you'll get a kind of visual stutter
Then the article mentions the resolution difference between the PS4, Wii U and Xbox One.
These are three different things, in three different paragraphs. They're related, but distinctly different.
But it's ok everyone, Mark Rubin says that it's of the utmost importance that CoD runs at 60 frames instead of 30.
Uh....
Um....
No.
Nope.
Fucking NO.
The difference between 15fps and 30fps is massive.
The difference between 30fps and 60fps is negligible, if it exists at all.
It's just like the rules of polygons. After a while, you're getting diminished returns.
Here's an image to help. Along with a graphical comparison.
Imagine Rubin is saying that they want CoD to have 60,000 triangles instead of 6,000 triangles.
It sounds good on paper. It sounds promising. But yet the textures look like burn ward regulars.
So there's no substance behind what you're saying.
Your game is running at 30fps with severe drops.
You just heard everyone talking about 60fps and hoped that if you said that, people would believe that the game is better despite the fact that it's stuttering.
That's like me saying I'm the healthiest I've been in years whilst sawing my own legs off.
You can embargo the reviews all you want. And it's definitely useful that you've made things so convoluted that you can hide behind false claims.
But the truth'll come out.
No comments:
Post a Comment