Hacker News Reader

Comment by pmoriarty | Hacker News Reader

I'm definitely not your typical gamer, but I've played and thoroughly enjoyed plenty of games which had way worse graphics and framerate than that.

I much prefer gameplay, wide freedom of action, an interesting world and characters, and good writing than eye candy.

View on HN

No offense but sub-20 FPS is unplayable, it's a slideshow. No matter what, how good the story, it ruins the whole game. Each to its own I guess but considering the historicity of the game this shouldn't have been released in this state.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yvtPgetQ0VI&feature=youtu.be...

It's like watching a movie in 240p. Sure you can enjoy it but is this really how you want to experience a good movie?

For me anything less than maybe 50 is unplayable, it just looks janky.

I've gotten to accept 30 FPS on console, but honestly I avoid getting too used to more than that right now because the difference is definitely very noticeable.

I did something similar back when most gaming moved to 1080p. I could accept 720p as long as I stuck with it. Once I got used to better, going back was a challenge.

I've been enjoying the game thus far, albeit on the PC. No issues, no bugs encountered. Granted I'm only 6 hours in, but still. I think people go out of their way to find things to complain and be negative about.

Frankly 1.0 releases of just about anything these days are buggy.

I don't expect initial releases of anything to be error free, and in a world of internet based distribution and continuous updates of games, I'm turned off by constant complaints about initial releases.

Cyberpunk 2077 was pushed back to address problems and people complained. They released with problems and people complain.

Game companies can't win in any scenario.

Announce too soon? Complain. Release when you say you will, but with bugs, complain. Release late to address bugs, complain.

Tangentially related, IMO the term "beta release" has evolved from being a true "help us test and find bugs" as a marketing tool to excuse negative feedback.

A proper framerate is about gameplay though, not eye candy.

I think it depends on art direction. A game with a solid artstyle designed for low resolution can be fine even if it doesn't really look the best, like alot of Nintendo games. But if the art style is riding on super high definition textures and eye candy then it can be really bad and jarring when it doesn't actually achieve that.

I thought the same thing until i started playing rdr2 on a 4k screen after using 1080 for months. Immediately i was able to detect ambushes, see much more detail in everything, and generally it was just easier to play.

I agree in general, but under a certain amount, it just takes you out of the moment too much. 25fps constant seems to be the start of OK.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com