Page 1 of 6 12345 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 52

Thread: Detail vs. Framerate

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    London
    Posts
    8

    Default Detail vs. Framerate

    First of all, let me just start off by saying that Wipeout Pulse is an extremely beautiful game (as is Pure), with graphics easily amongst the best on the PSP from both a technical and artistic perspective.

    However, I have to question the wisdom of putting so much graphical detail into a game that's pretty much about racing at incredibly high speeds. Especially when it affects the frame-rate so much. Not so bad on time trials, zone etc. but very noticeable on 8-ship races, especially at the higher speed classes. It's certainly an improvement over Pure, but still not ideal.

    Personally, I'd rather have less detail, and a smoother, more consistent frame-rate - a bit like what F-Zero X did back on the N64, but obviously not as extreme. What do others think?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    2,651

    Default

    I agree with you, really. I think the framerate on Pulse is worse than Pure on some tracks when racing AI ships. I never really noticed framerate drops in Pure at all, except on multiplayer, and they never bothered me offline. In single player, Pulse framerate is quite disturbingly low, for me, at some moments and on some tracks.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bedfordshire, England
    PSN ID
    Ash-Omen
    Posts
    142

    Default

    i think the framerates fine its a very detailed game and ive noticed the framerate does drop allittle on 8 player phantom races but not by a large amount its still perfectly playable, lol it wouldent make much difference anyway cos 8 player phantom is alittle too hard too know wat the hells goin on anyway

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Bonn, Germany
    Timezone
    GMT + 1
    PSN ID
    GTAce
    Posts
    97

    Default

    Hmmm i dont have a PSP so i cant say how much the gameplay suffers from the FPS drops but i think on a Handheld console like the PSP you can get over it.
    See, Sony must also show what the PSP can do and i think Pulse does this very well.
    If you want a really flawless and fluid experience you should stay on the home consoles and wait for WipEout HD (1080p @60 frames iirc).
    You cant expect that from a Handheld imo.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Upstate NY, USA
    Timezone
    GMT -5
    PSN ID
    Frances_Penfold --ofw--
    Posts
    923

    Default

    Interesting post

    I agree that framerate, in general, is almost always more important than graphical detail.

    On the other hand, the game modes in Wipeout Pure and Pulse that I cherish most-- namely, time trials and speed lap and free play-- hold up really well in the frame-rate department. So on balance I'm willing to give up some frames-per-second in multiplayer to maintain the beautiful and stunning track detail that I appreciate in single player time trialing.

    Wipeout seems to have a long tradition of creating cool tracks with interesting backgrounds-- it has always differed from F-zero in this regard. Egg has made some interesting posts over the last year or two about tricks Studio Liverpool has to maintain the framerate while keeping as much detail as possible. (Things like inclusion of tunnel sections, that keep the game from having to show so much graphical detail at some points, and clouds as well.)

    As an aside-- do folks think that the less detailed and "cel-shaded" look of tracks in Zone mode something that was implemented to maintain the framerate even when the game is racing at insane speeds?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,242

    Default

    Pulse isn't flawless by any means but the frame rate seems pretty good to me. I was certainly impressed when I first loaded it up and going back to Pure reveals just how much better it is. Yes, things get choppier when it gets very busy but Pulse is one of the smoother PSP games to me.

    In fact the only one I can think of that is silky smooth on the PSP is Ridge Racer, which is lovely.

    Yeah, if it were up to me, I'd put smoothness over detail but I think Pulse runs much better and that counts for a lot.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    UK & France
    Timezone
    GMT + 1
    PSN ID
    ZenDJiNN
    Posts
    272

    Default

    I'm with you there Frances..... i often use freeplay just to wander about the tracks, looking at the buildings & the scenery..... even imagining what that it's a place i could quite easily visit and maybe get a place to live. I'd LOVE to go for a walk around Moa or Platinum for instance, but as the closest i can get (at the moment) is drifting slowly around in a ship, i'll take that...... detail means a lot to me personally, and i think SL have "Nailed it" given the limits of a machine that's quite old now spec wise....

    Still love Pure as well though, and often do the same there. In fact, i have a nice little condo to rent in Iridia if anyone's interested!

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    vienna
    Timezone
    GMT + 1
    PSN ID
    phl0w
    Posts
    372

    Default

    I'd choose framerate over detail any day of the week. I can't play Forza or PGR to the day because they stutter so much. Now there are people out there that think there's no noticeable difference between 30 or 60fps, and maybe to some people there isn't. I, on the other hand, can't stand it and get headaches from playing @30fps over a longer period of time. First thing I noticed was the bad framerate of Pulse especially in Eliminator and when a Ghost is loaded. I think of it like this: You can get used to slightly less detailed tracks and ships, but a dropping framerate is something that you can't get used to because it's so random, and effectively alters gameplay because physics, thus your ships handling is dependent of framerate. I think that from all WOs 3 has the best graphics. Despite its obvious lower polygon count and less sophisticated tech than Pure/ Pulse it looks the most realistic and runs smoothest too.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    England
    PSN ID
    DIGI-KORE
    Posts
    305

    Default

    thats a good point, 3 does almost look as good and runs flawlessly on less powerful hardware, however i thought the human eye can only pick up 25fps? which is why films are recorded at that isnt it?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Ireland
    Posts
    1,242

    Default

    No, the human eye can definitely tell the difference at higher frame rates. You only have to compare something running at a steady 60fps to something at 30fps to see it.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •