For those of you who are thinking of getting this at day one I'd recommend you hold off on it. I have a buddy that played it at PAX and he was saying that the game was no where near ready to be shipped. There were bugs galore and the game ended up crashing on him.Basically there was a reason Sony wasn't showing off actual gameplay from PAX when it was there. Wait for reputable reviews to come out and for the average consumer to get it in their hands before dropping money on it. This might end up being another Assassins Creed Unity at launch.
Not being a better experience, not a negligible difference. It's not witty if you don't make properly answer it.
Quote from: LC on January 21, 2015, 03:19:25 PMFor those of you who are thinking of getting this at day one I'd recommend you hold off on it. I have a buddy that played it at PAX and he was saying that the game was no where near ready to be shipped. There were bugs galore and the game ended up crashing on him.Basically there was a reason Sony wasn't showing off actual gameplay from PAX when it was there. Wait for reputable reviews to come out and for the average consumer to get it in their hands before dropping money on it. This might end up being another Assassins Creed Unity at launch.I have no intentions of getting this game in the near future, so don't mistake this as damage control or anything, but was it even the latest build at PAX?I've seen multiple hands on reviews that never mentioned it being buggy.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on January 21, 2015, 02:54:23 PMNot being a better experience, not a negligible difference. It's not witty if you don't make properly answer it. Well, when you say "not better", that makes me think "worse", meaning it's not negligible. And clearly, it's not negligible to them, if they can even make the distinction. So my point still stands--I can't possibly imagine 24fps being worse than 60fps, let alone 30. I'd settle for 20, for crying out loud. I'm sure the game played just fine.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on January 21, 2015, 02:54:23 PMNot being a better experience, not a negligible difference. It's not witty if you don't make properly answer it. Well, when you say "not better", that makes me think "worse," for some reason. Which would have meant that it's not negligible.But clearly, it's not negligible to them, if they can even make the distinction. So my point still stands--I can't possibly imagine 24fps being worse than 60fps, let alone 30. I'd settle for 20, for crying out loud. I'm sure the game played just fine.
This is the only opinion preventing you from being a perfect fit for neogaf.
Quote from: Naoto on January 21, 2015, 03:34:40 PMThis is the only opinion preventing you from being a perfect fit for neogaf. The only issue I have when it comes to frame rate is when it isn't consistent. Duh. I mean, no one likes lag. But to me, that's the only reasonable outlook to have on the matter.
24fps isn't a problem with framerate, it's a problem with the refresh rate on a TV. If a TV refreshes at 60Hz, that means you're actively missing frames if it isn't a flat number divisible by 60 like 20, 30, or (duh) 60.
The Order 1886 - Story Trailer
