Should Games Journalists talk about the 'Red Dead | Killzone Effect' in their reviews?

[Lord Error]

The internal thought path argument depends on if the viewpoint is whether you ARE Arthur vs you DIRECTING Arthur's story. It's clear the devs had discretion whether to make it 200ms (potential engine limit) or 400ms (actual animation).

Click to shrink...

I don't think philosophizing about it serves much purpose. Just imagine applying that thinking to the mouse pointer on your PC - "it's ok that the pointer lags behind where my hand is moving by 200-400ms, because it, as a character, should have its own agency, and I'm just directing it!", lol.
In the end, whatever the intent or limitations are, the person interacting with the game end up waiting for things to happen that they shouldn't need to wait on. Also, what you are saying is clear, is not actually clear at all. Yeah, the input lag due to rendering process may be 200ms but that doesn't mean that animation could start that quickly if they wanted, because the animation engine could easily be adding extra lag.

 

[bruhaha]

Just imagine applying that thinking to the mouse pointer on your PC - "it's ok that the pointer lags behind where my hand is moving by 200-400ms, because it, as a character, should have its own agency, and I'm just directing it!", lol.

Click to shrink...

Your perception of your relationship to the character definitely is part of the story-telling. Would you be happier if Arthur was just a mouse cursor with zero animation and 33ms lag?

Again, we don't know for sure why aiming movement is 200ms and walking is 400ms. Let's say you're right and the animation engine added lag because of other reasons such as processing time needed to find a good transition that looks natural, and that if they made it 200ms instead of 400ms the number of animations they could choose to play would be fewer and more jerky. In the end that's still an artistic choice, isn't it? If they told you the reason would that change your opinion at all?

 

[Deleted member 2321]

So you wouldn't have bought the game if the score was 85 or something? Or is your issue specifically with the fact a lot of reviewers glossed over the movement having input lag?

Click to shrink...

Kinda yes to both.

Though I probably would have gotten it eventually, but damn sure not the $100 version that I did buy.

 

[Lord Error]

Again, we don't know for sure why aiming movement is 200ms and walking is 400ms. Let's say you're right and the animation engine added lag because of other reasons such as processing time needed to find a good transition that looks natural, and that if they made it 200ms instead of 400ms the number of animations they could choose to play would be fewer and more jerky. In the end that's still an artistic choice, isn't it? If they told you the reason would that change your opinion at all?

Click to shrink...

Well, I guess again, we'll see when the game runs on PC at 60FPS - I highly doubt the walking animation lag will be 400ms. In my opinion they should have made the animation engine so that it finds (or creates on the fly, if that's what it does) proper animation quicker. Moving in the direction where the character is already facing, when there's nothing in the vicinity for him to interact with, shouldn't have that much of a lag :\

 

[AndreGX]

Reminded of how well it went the last time I complained about input lag for a major release on a major website...

https://i.postimg.cc/WzFxJcF7/Yep.png

https://www.gamespot.com/videos/killzone-2-first-impressions/2300-6204017/

 

[gfxtwin]

It doesn't really get to me in Red Dead 2 because it has nice lock-on and how shooting is only one part of what you're doing. Now Killzone 2? THAT is some horrendous lag. That shit is makes it unplayable now to me.