Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
PGHammer

Need For Speed: Rivals x64 - Impressions/Thoughts?

78 posts in this topic

Honestly I think you gotta be full of crap to defend a 30fps lock.  The only reason I can see it's there is because the Xbox One and PS4 have the same lock, and it's lame as hell either way.

In other words, you want a return to old-school, hardware-dependent game development (which is the sort of thing that drove early PC game developers, and players alike, crazy, and gave birth to consoles in the first place).

 

Console development doesn't get into such an arms race because it's supposed to be pointless - any PS4 is supposed to be like every other PS4.  (The same applies to difference between XB1 consoles, or any two consoles of the same brand.)  There are still PC gamers that have resisted the sameness of consoles - and not all of us want to get into the "arms race mentality" that still pervades the desktop form-factor PC (starting with the original Crysis); heck, some of us don't have desktop form-factor PCs at all.  Given that the economy has NOT completely recovered, there's less reason for such an arms race than ever - even in the desktop PC form-factor.  Multi-platform game development no longer means only consoles and desktop PCs - it also means portable PCs (notebooks, Ultrabooks, and their tablet/slate progeny).  It also means - at the lowest end - devices (tablets and smartphones) running either full-fledged games or adjuncts to games on PCs or consoles (such as the iFruit app for GTA V, or the NFS Network app for Most Wanted and Rivals).  Gaming - even PC gaming - is no longer a niche/elitist market because it no longer makes any economic sense. (In case you haven't noticed, there are also fewer single-brand console exclusives this launch cycle compared to the previous generation - that's also far from a bad thing.)  Those of you that love that "arms race" mentality may hate it, but those of us that just want to get into a game and PLAY couldn't be happier - and this is especially true of those of us not on the bleeding edge,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In other words, you want a return to old-school, hardware-dependent game development (which is the sort of thing that drove early PC game developers, and players alike, crazy, and gave birth to consoles in the first place).

You keep speaking but nothing that's coming out of your mouth is making any sense.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you seem to think letting the rendering code run faster than 30fps will block consoles from running the game, consoles would be frame rate locked as usual.

Locking the PC port to 30fps makes it a bad port, tying the simulation logic to framerate is bad programming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you seem to think letting the rendering code run faster than 30fps will block consoles from running the game, consoles would be frame rate locked as usual.

Locking the PC port to 30fps makes it a bad port, tying the simulation logic to framerate is bad programming.

Every time they did it that I recall they ended up patching it out...so as I said before, here's hoping.  Even if not, I'd certainly hope the Mantle renderer isn't locked.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You keep speaking but nothing that's coming out of your mouth is making any sense.

Do you really think that even most PC gamers want to spend time feeding into the "arms race" mentality that drives hardware upgrades, and especially those driven entirely by gaming?

 

I found it a pain in the rear prior to the original Crysis - which actually made things worse.

 

What makes the mentality any more sane than when it comes to weapons?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that even most PC gamers want to spend time feeding into the "arms race" mentality that drives hardware upgrades, and especially those driven entirely by gaming?

So say I only buy a new PC as often as new consoles come out, but I like playing games from 3-5 years ago when I do.  (This isn't true in my case, but I know people who it is.)  Should the game be the exact same as it was when it came out, not because of my system but because of an arbitrary limitation?  Even in your scenario, having better performance through being framerate locked doesn't make any sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every time they did it that I recall they ended up patching it out...so as I said before, here's hoping.  Even if not, I'd certainly hope the Mantle renderer isn't locked.

The reason it got patched out on PC is because of that "arms race" mentality that is STILL prevalent at the high end of PC gaming.  It's not a big part - however, the squeaking does get rather loud.

 

Quite honestly, I could care less, and not because I hate PC gaming - I simply have things that I'd rather be doing with my time (and my money) as opposed to competing to see who has the biggest e-peen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So say I only buy a new PC as often as new consoles come out, but I like playing games from 3-5 years ago when I do.  (This isn't true in my case, but I know people who it is.)  Should the game be the exact same as it was when it came out, not because of my system but because of an arbitrary limitation?  Even in your scenario, having better performance through being framerate locked doesn't make any sense.

How is it arbitrary?  Because there is actually a ceiling? All upgrades - for any PC - reach a point of diminishing returns; what a performance ceiling does is bring sanity to your PC hardware budget.  (Basically, it's the same thinking behind military treaties, or even console hardware standards/APIs - or PC APIs, for that matter.)

 

By setting a reasonable ceiling - and enforcing it with caps - performance at the floor can then be worked on.  (All too often, game performance on PCs at the minimum, or even recommended, level suffered horribly because game developers concentrated so hard on satisfying the high end.  Satisfying the low end, and the midrange, is not supposed to be a crime, even when it does mean that the high end can't push a game as hard as it wants to.  Satisfactory performance grows the market, which means more games get sold, which means increased earnings, for both developers AND publishers.  Think of frame-rate caps as treaty enforcement.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol @ the game running at twice the speed with the frame unlocking

 

I will play this game though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How is it arbitrary?  Because there is actually a ceiling? All upgrades - for any PC - reach a point of diminishing returns; what a performance ceiling does is bring sanity to your PC hardware budget.  (Basically, it's the same thinking behind military treaties, or even console hardware standards/APIs - or PC APIs, for that matter.)

 

By setting a reasonable ceiling - and enforcing it with caps - performance at the floor can then be worked on.  (All too often, game performance on PCs at the minimum, or even recommended, level suffered horribly because game developers concentrated so hard on satisfying the high end.  Satisfying the low end, and the midrange, is not supposed to be a crime, even when it does mean that the high end can't push a game as hard as it wants to.  Satisfactory performance grows the market, which means more games get sold, which means increased earnings, for both developers AND publishers.  Think of frame-rate caps as treaty enforcement.)

I have no idea why you keep treating the frame rate cap as a performance thing, it's not. It's 100% down to being a bad port and the game being programmed badly, they literally can't raise the frame rate without the game breaking. Run the game on a super computer 30 years from now and it'd still run at 30fps.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The last great nfs game was nfs 2002. Anything after that is rated 4/10 in my book and nothing like the older games. Rivlas isn't any different from need for speed 2010 or most wanted or the other one lol. They need to back to the roots and also release road rash. EA is a terrible company lol

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello,

As it should be.  There shouldn't even be a 32 bit edition.

As long as Microsoft release 32 bit operating systems, there always should be a 32 bit edition THEN a 64 bit edition.

I played Battlefield 4 on 32 bits and it was great :)

 

 

I don't hate the x64 edition whatever - in fact, that is the only executable I am playing (as is the case with Battlefield 4).

I was referring to hating the 32 bit edition.

 

I started this thread for the exact same reason I started the Battlefield x64 thread - the reality that the x64 game has very much come of age.

Like I mentioned, until Microsoft releases a 64 bit only operating system for consumers, the 64 bit only software age will never kick off as large as it should.  

You went way overboard with your reply but I dont care much about 10000fps. I just want a fun game, not the best graphics in the world :)

 

a 32-bit process is limited to 2GB of memory

And everyday you learn something new :)

I thought it was around 3GB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as Microsoft release 32 bit operating systems, there always should be a 32 bit edition THEN a 64 bit edition.

That 32 bit exe is only catering to 9% of their playerbase, a number that will keep shrinking.  While I personally don't think it's worth their time now, they'll decide it isn't worth their time soon enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...

And everyday you learn something new :)

I thought it was around 3GB

Windows itself limits apps to 2GB (total) on 32bit Windows (it takes the rest for the kernel and the hardware takes some), that 2GB limit for 32bit apps remains on 64bit Windows unless the developer sets the right flag on the executable (Then it will get the full 4GB)

I have no idea why a game like BF4 even comes in a 32bit variant, it needs more than 2GB of RAM to run properly, and it's not like it'd even run right on hardware old enough to be 32bit only (And there's no good reason for running 32bit Windows on 64bit hardware)

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its a good thing i have all the older versions, jewel cases, etc. I'm abotu to play NFS porshe unleased in about an hour. Even this game is better than all the newer ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Windows itself limits apps to 2GB (total) on 32bit Windows (it takes the rest for the kernel and the hardware takes some), that 2GB limit for 32bit apps remains on 64bit Windows unless the developer sets the right flag on the executable (Then it will get the full 4GB)

I have no idea why a game like BF4 even comes in a 32bit variant, it needs more than 2GB of RAM to run properly, and it's not like it'd even run right on hardware old enough to be 32bit only (And there's no good reason for running 32bit Windows on 64bit hardware)

Two words - older hardware.

 

Never mind that the percentage of such hardware among gamers is officially in miniscule territory.  (Only with XP, which is where the division between x32 and x64 began, has x32 continued to outnumber x64.  Vista, unlike XP, had x64 versions of most SKUs - including those most in demand - at launch.  Further, Vista's launch window included the breakout of x64 and quad-core onto the CPU scene.)  

 

Also, how many folks with x64 operating systems still insist on running x32 applications, games, etc - even when an x64 version that does everything they need is available?  (No, I'm not referring to Web browsers, but productivity applications and suites, and specifically Microsoft Office 2010 and later, and I am NOT referring to those locked in add-in/plug-in jail.  Remember - like Windows, if you are licensed for an SKU of a version of Office, it is NOT bitness-specific; if there is an x64 version of your SKU available, you can crossgrade with the same license.)

 

This week, I actually got dragged into a HARDWARE upgrade due to my x64 transition.

 

I wound up replacing my (PCI bus) X-Fi XtremeGamer due to a known flaw that specifically involved the x64 support at 4 GB of RAM or higher.  It's hardware-related (not software), therefore, the only real fix is replacing the hardware.

 

Planning for future upgrades, I realized that I WOULD be breaching that 4 GB barrier - hence, even though I had no issues with the card in question now, there WOULD be issues later.

 

Basically, I had to stop stalling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no idea why you keep treating the frame rate cap as a performance thing, it's not. It's 100% down to being a bad port and the game being programmed badly, they literally can't raise the frame rate without the game breaking. Run the game on a super computer 30 years from now and it'd still run at 30fps.

 

That is the nature of software - whether we're talking games or productivity applications or even operating systems.

 

ALL software has some sort of performance cap - even Excel (spreadsheet software) has a limit as to how fast it can calculate - and it's not a hardware limit, either.

 

You don't like limits - fine.  I don't have a problem with that opinion per se.

 

What I have been saying is that there are disadvantages to concentrating all the development efforts on maximizing performance on the high end.  (Every game developer has said the same thing - even PC-focussed game developers.)

 

Concentrating on the high end means that the middle and low end will inevitably suffer for it.

 

That nasty realization led DIRECTLY to consoles, and developers catering to that need because there was no need for a software cap - all consoles are alike by design; basically a HARDWARE cap.

 

Meanwhile, with a new generation of the consoles (easily the most PC-like consoles ever) there is also pressure on the PC gaming market to grow - and during a still-poor economy.

 

You can't grow while starving the low-end and midrange of gaming quality - which most admit the concentration on the high end (whether the game is a console port or not) definitely does.

 

Those minimum (and even recommended) requirements to play a game (and especially a AAA game) have to be realistic - and until the implementation of caps, they have NOT been.

 

Look at the minimum and recommended requirements for the original Starcraft (Anthology - which encompasses the original game and the Brood War expansion) - how well would you say it hit the targets of its day?

 

How playable is Anthology today - on modern hardware - in YOUR opinion?  (It's far from facetious - I happen to own Anthology, and, quite bluntly, it looks meh and quite flat compared merely to Sins of a Solar Empire, let alone either Wings of Liberty or Heart of the Swarm - and I have hardware closest to the floor of the latter two, while it was not even a consideration in Anthology's heyday.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well its a good thing i have all the older versions, jewel cases, etc. I'm abotu to play NFS porshe unleased in about an hour. Even this game is better than all the newer ones.

And why is that, pray tell?

 

Is it because you have hardware closer to the high-end of that game's design?  (That actually makes sense as a reason - especially if you purchased the game prior to even so much as one major hardware revision.)

 

Porsche Unleashed and High Stakes are NOT in the same category as Rivals (or Hot Pursuit, which preceded it in the same category), as neither includes either playing as, or avoiding, the police - both are straight racing games.

 

Therefore, preference of that category of game also is a sensible reason.  (I avoided purchasing either BECAUSE I tend to prefer the Hot Pursuit model - both playing as a racer avoiding the cops, and playing as a cop, busting racers - as opposed to a straight arcade racing game - I have a low opinion of SHIFT, SHIFT 2, and the GRID series as well, and not JUST due to their "simminess" - almost Flight Simulator on the ground.)

 

If you really think that neither is capped  at the high end, you're likely going to be in for a rather rude shock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And why is that, pray tell?

The same reason Ultima is better than these new fangled RPGs :rolleyes:

 

(Yes, I know people like that.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is the nature of software - whether we're talking games or productivity applications or even operating systems.

 

ALL software has some sort of performance cap - even Excel (spreadsheet software) has a limit as to how fast it can calculate - and it's not a hardware limit, either.

 

Totally wrong. Software will execute as fast as the hardware it's running on will permit, proof of this is easily observable when running older games that do not artificially limit or otherwise time lock the game simulation, resulting in games running unusably fast. The solution? CPU limiting.

 

The_Decryptor is 100% right here, the limit in NFS is purely the result of shoddy programming practices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 The old classic games are better anyway. nothing to tell i guess. hell even need for speed 2 se is better than the newer nfs games. and has better music. i miss the music, now they included stupid rap music or some other junk lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I managed to play this for some time and ...

 

Wow what a utter piece of turd this game is. From the robotic female voiceover to moronic 30fps hard lock, the game disgusts me. Just feels and plays like themed or skinned version of 2010 Most Wanted.

 

Playing this game requires absolutely no skill. Criterion/Ghost games makes sure of that by giving us a feeling of playing Russian Roulette. Crash crash ..bang bang and if you are lucky, you come first. No matter how much you upgrade your car, AI will catch up with you even if their car is obviously slower. My friend regrets spending so much money on it.

 

Need For Speed Series is Dead now. :(

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Totally wrong. Software will execute as fast as the hardware it's running on will permit, proof of this is easily observable when running older games that do not artificially limit or otherwise time lock the game simulation, resulting in games running unusably fast. The solution? CPU limiting.

 

The_Decryptor is 100% right here, the limit in NFS is purely the result of shoddy programming practices.

In short, Athernar, to play older software on modern PCs, either the developer imposes a cap or the USER has to, if the developer did not.  Either way, a cap becomes a necessary to preserve playability.

 

You basically just made my point for me, even though you would rather not have.

 

And I never said that the practice wasn't shoddy - however, how much would the game COST for it to be written "correctly"?

 

Look at AA title costs today - whether the game is multi-platform or not.  (Yes - I am referring to non-top-shelf games.)  Game development is not cheap, and quality code-writers for games are not cheap, either.

 

If we waited for a game to be written "properly", given what we have seen out of most games (from most game developers), we would have better luck waiting for Godot, as most games of the past five years, if not the last ten, would not have shipped.  And we would doubtless be a lot MORE horked off over game development - this time, over how much longer game development would take.

 

What do we want - quality OR quantity?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In short, Athernar, to play older software on modern PCs, either the developer imposes a cap or the USER has to, if the developer did not.  Either way, a cap becomes a necessary to preserve playability.

 

You basically just made my point for me, even though you would rather not have.

 

And I never said that the practice wasn't shoddy - however, how much would the game COST for it to be written "correctly"?

 

Look at AA title costs today - whether the game is multi-platform or not.  (Yes - I am referring to non-top-shelf games.)  Game development is not cheap, and quality code-writers for games are not cheap, either.

 

If we waited for a game to be written "properly", given what we have seen out of most games (from most game developers), we would have better luck waiting for Godot, as most games of the past five years, if not the last ten, would not have shipped.  And we would doubtless be a lot MORE horked off over game development - this time, over how much longer game development would take.

 

What do we want - quality OR quantity?

 

Please stop with the waffling PGHammer, it doesn't change the fact that you are still wrong.

 

Writing games to be temporally stable has absolutely nothing to do with how intensive a game is or imposing caps, it's purely a matter of good (common sense) practice.

 

These aren't hard to tackle issues like code vectorisation, these are basics. (classroom level basics) There is no excuse for this level of shoddy coding.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please stop with the waffling PGHammer, it doesn't change the fact that you are still wrong.

 

Writing games to be temporally stable has absolutely nothing to do with how intensive a game is or imposing caps, it's purely a matter of good (common sense) practice.

 

These aren't hard to tackle issues like code vectorisation, these are basics. (classroom level basics) There is no excuse for this level of shoddy coding.

Athernar, you are not referring to temporal stability - you are referring to a game that keeps up with ever-changing and faster technology.  I haven't run into a single piece of software - game or not -- that can do so without a constant litany of patching - and most users will tire of the software (again, game or not) that has to be constantly patched to remain (in your words) temporally stable - as it is, most folks, even in FOSS, consider the patch litany a necessary EVIL.   (They do it, but don't like it.)

 

Technology is advancing faster than most gamers, programmers or users would like - and that is the case today.  Merely keeping up with the advances is a GPB - which is why I am no longer a programmer, as I would have little time left for a life if Ii had to both keep up with the state of technology art AND write code eight hours a day.  For consoles, it WAS easier in the last two generations - however, next-gen (PS4 and XB1 in particular) is so close to PC in terms of specs and such that I would wager that the more enterprising are already looking to do some of the same things with them that they are doing with PCs - and which developers will have to keep up with.

 

Athernar, do you write programs?  Have you done software development for ANY platform?  What sounds easy - from the outside - usually isn't when it gets down to the nuts and bolts.  The complexity of software is already at the point where a complete rewrite is threatening to become easier than a parade of patches.  (And i'm referring to PC and console development - not mobile development, where the rewrite has already replaced the patch all too often.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.