PDA

View Full Version : Question about the framerate



Mangar The Dark
24th Jun 2003, 13:32
I've seen a few people mention that the game has a terrible drop in frame rate at some points. I'm wondering if it's comparable to that awful drop in frame rate that occurred on certain levels in TR2 (the first level, the Maria Doria levels, and several others that I can't remember at the moment.) I never understood why those levels ran so incredibly slowly, especially since every other level (and every other TR game) ran very smoothly on my computer, but it was one of the reasons I never really enjoyed TR2 much at all. I'm afraid it could ruin my enjoyment of AOD too. (BTW-- I'm referring to the PC version of TR2.) How bad is it, and how often does it occur?

T_Rex
24th Jun 2003, 17:54
Speaking from the PS2 version of AOD, I can also back up that I have experienced some moments of drop of framerate. I am not that far into the game (only 4 hours of gameplay) and I have already experineced at least 3 instances of this gameplay slow-down. First was in the first training levels on the rooftops of Paris, it happened on the tallest building where you first find the crowbar. Standing in the middle of the rooftop the game suddenly went into "slow-mo" mode and got somewhat low-resolution and pixelated. I wouldnt technically say that the "framerate" actually got slower (that would cause the action to seem stuttered/ jumpy), but that the action of the game went into a slowed down time state due to lack of processing speed. At first I thought that it was on purpose because something big and dramatic was about to happen, but no. It also happened in a spot in the Ghetto streets and in the Sewer Hideouts beneith the Ghetto. These occurances certainly happened during parts of these levels where the visuals were very loaded, so I am attribuiting it to the fact that the PS2 couldnt handle so many polygons. Which is confusing because the game was designed specifically for the PS2 console and should run smoothly at its requirements. I would love to hear possibly from an Eidos representative to see what they have to say about it. Maybe a problem with rushing the game out on the market without throughly testing it on the console?

KillahFrog
24th Jun 2003, 19:58
T-Rex...

Get use to that slow-down... It happens quite often in the areas you still haven't gotten to. I notice it quite often. Seems to be related to the particle system... Too much to process at a single time.

The other thing that you have to watch out for, at least on the PS2 version, is dropping completely through the world. At least 10 times I've "died" because of a glitch in the game where I slip through the game world and start falling into nothing. Seems to happen most when I try to grab an edge, oh... when you get to the warehouse, there are these black pipes that you can walk through.... Don't jump in them because off to nowhere you will go.

Advice to give to PS2 users: Save... save... and save save save save save.

Kf

OriginalBryGuy
24th Jun 2003, 20:09
These occurances certainly happened during parts of these levels where the visuals were very loaded, so I am attribuiting it to the fact that the PS2 couldnt handle so many polygons. Which is confusing because the game was designed specifically for the PS2 console and should run smoothly at its requirements.

The PS2 has handled the likes of Metal Gear Solid 2 and Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. The PS2 hardware is not at fault. Tomb Raider: Angel of Darkness isn't taxing the hardware in the slightest. The blame here should go squarely on the game design and game being rushed to our hands when they should have spent more time one it.

I agree with Frog...SAVE OFTEN.

flamingblue8z
24th Jun 2003, 20:34
Not entirely, remember, different game, different engine. Who said those games have particle systems? I've never played either, but i've seen GTA:VC in action and i haven't seen any particle system in there. I really think Tomb Raider has gone a bit further than console technology is at right now. Like Kf said, these are VERY complex places that Core put together, and the PS2 can only handle so much. Remember, these are developed on computers, not PS2s, so it's not particularly that easy to make sure that they haven't "out done" themselves on graphics. The game looks great, though, nonetheless. Sure, there's a LOT of slowdowns, but just change the camera angle a bit so that you're not looking at extensive views that have so many polygons and particles in them and you'll be fine. Smoke, lasers (particularly the blue ones slow the game down), steam, fire, raindrops, they all are produced by the particle engine. On a computer, with GeForces (most likely, since they're favored by game developers) powering the creation of the game, they're kicking out more power than that PS2 could accomplish. If the game came out 2 years ago when graphics weren't as complex as they are today, there wouldn't be an issue, but Core is pushing the limits, which is great for PC's, but consoles can only do so much. At least the game runs, though, we should be thankful for that.

OriginalBryGuy
24th Jun 2003, 20:48
Not entirely, remember, different game, different engine. Who said those games have particle systems? I've never played either, but i've seen GTA:VC in action and i haven't seen any particle system in there.

Take a look at the first level of Metal Gear Solid 2 and compare that to the first level of AOD sometime. There's particles, and enemies all over the place, a far more extensive use then AOD is doing and it doesn't slow down once.

Level two of AOD, notice how there's NO one walking around town and how often the level has to load. Vice City is just broken up into 3 areas that are filled with moving vehicles, people, objects.

I know what you're trying to say, and I hear you, I just don't see this as the PS2's fault. The fact is games with more particles, texture mapping, and faster loadtimes then AOD have been created and years before now. AOD just isn't bringing anything new to the table in those areas, in fact, it's really a step back.

But I guess we'll know more when we play the PC version, then the real comparisons can come. Again, I hope the PC verison clears everything up.

T_Rex
24th Jun 2003, 22:21
I would have to take bits and pieces of what everybody is saying and agree. Absolutely Core and Eidos are taking leaps and bounds with gaming technology and I applaud them for that. However, they have a responsability to create games WITHIN the capabilities of the game console. Like I said before, this game was created for the PS2 console, not the PC, not the XBox or anything else. In most game design studios I have seen, they actually have a PS2 console hooked directly up to the workstation they are creating a game with and can switch right over to the PS2 and check what they have just created.

As for the slowdowns, certainly (if your hardware backs it up) AOD will run smoother than a babys butt on a PC because the technology in AOD is, lets admit, quite simple compared to recent PC gaming breakthroughs. A simple 32mb video card should be enough to handle it. It has what most PC gaming fanatics call "Playstation-itis." Just the reverse occurs with PC games that go to a console. For example, Max Payne is one of the best PC games out there, however, when it was adapted by Rockstar Games to go to the consoles, there were huge problems with framerate and slowdown and poor controls. So simply put: Console games are best played on consoles and PC games are best played on PCs. Or at least they should be.

The evidence of slow-downs in the PS2 version of AOD might be an example of how this above rule was broken. I would much rather that Core and Eidos go all out and declare that Tomb Raider will become a sole PC game, that way they can program thier hands off with the greatest visuals and effects ever seen. BUT, since they have declared and marketed this most recent Tomb Raider (as well as all past TR games) as a Sony Playstation console game, they have limits, and should remain in them. When they don't stay within these limits, or they dont test if they have or not, then we the gamers get these unfortunate results that we are all experiencing.

I just hope that these slow-downs and supposed 'holes-in-walls' dont distract me from the true genius of the Tomb Raider games, the deep involving storylines and gripping character developments.

flamingblue8z
25th Jun 2003, 01:31
First i want to point out that i do get a little bit realistic later on, but rest assured, i love this game and the rest of the series, so don't think i'm downing it.

I agree with some of that, with the exception of Tomb Raider being a PS based game. Started with MS-DOS, i have read back as far as i could, i've researched to see where Tomb Raider got its start, and DOS was where they started the programming and finished it. Luckily, back then it was easily portable to 2 other platforms. And even now, that same DOS code is so basic, i have Tomb Raider for the PocketPC (that's right, i play the original Tomb Raider on my PDA). And for quite some time, Tomb Raider was developed on a level scale between the 2 platforms. If the PS couldn't do it, they didn't put it into the PC version. Eventually, yes, the last 2 (LR and Chronicles) did have some plusses for the PC version (much better lighting, transparency was better, etc.) and i think that as much as Core wanted to stick with the PS2 console, they're starting to leave it behind. An honest mistake in my opinion. But considering the level of customization available for the PC (remember the Level Editor? I keep forgetting its existance...) and the better stability (that seems like a bs statement, but considering what my PS2 has done to my TR games...) and graphics, i'm afraid Tomb Raider will fall into the PC game category. I think that other games have been pushing TR out of its spotlight as the "Mario of the PlayStation", GTA especially is big now. Maybe MGS will take on the rein, but i know that the days of TR being the "big thing" won't be forgotten. Times change, people change, pop icons move in and out of the spotlight. I'm a Lara fan, die hard, for sure, i only bought the new strategy guide so that it can go with my other 5 and to get the big poster of Lara and Kurtis that is now going on my wall. So no, it's not Tomb Raider bashing either, it's still my favorite game, but i think the cold reality that Tomb Raider's time is running up really is sinking in to me. Yes, the new game gives it publicity, and Kurtis will give the game a bit of a change, as well as the movie to keep it going strong, but right now, i don't know what is going to happen with Tomb Raider. I'm not pessimistic, but i don't want to be overly optimistic. Tomb Raider will live on, even if it fades out of the spotlight. We the fans want to know what happens, and look at the old shows, like Charlie's Angels. Sure, that was big back in its time, and fans clung on to the TV series, and now, we have 2 movies that are kicking in everyone's interest again. Who knows, it's been almost 7 years that we've had Tomb Raider, and eventually, when it fades out of the spotlight, the fans will still remain, and give it a few years, fan-produced material will take over for a while, then Core can make a comeback. Really this is all in theory from watching and seeing what happens, but don't take any of this as a mortal blow to probably THE best, most definative, gripping-story, action-packed, kick-butt adventure game that we've ever seen. Nothing, in my opinion, will top the 2 basic elements of all the Tomb Raider games: the story, and Lara.

*bows*

i thank you.

coyotekid
26th Jun 2003, 19:04
My friend's game experienced a loop of sound when Lara gives you direction early in the game, which didn't happen to me but REALLY annoying. Everybody got slowdown in the roof top I suppose, but what appears to be a serious problem is @ the club, my game freezed when she held on the moving dacing light. How would you explain that ?!
[..]
But I love the game and it's worth the wait,
"Can't miss this new experience" .. ya my 5 words for AOD