EA Motive's Dan Lowe compares the input response times of RDR2 with Uncharted, Assassin's Creed etc
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
At times like these I can only feel that review score culture is such utter garbage. That people think they're clever by making fun by engaging in such reductive dismissal of genuine criticism is as pathetic as the scores they like to cite to reassure themselves. Fucking cringe.
I love this game, just want them to fix some issue so I can love it even more.
Sometimes the deadzone is too large on the sticks and that feels like input lag. To the end user, it effectively is unless there's a setting to reduce it!
There is a setting to reduce deadzone, all the way to zero
Settings>Controls
Make sure to adjust it for Third and First Person
Same here, been playing almost daily and I even restarted the whole game half way through Chapter 3 to fix the missing character in camp bug. It's pretty obvious that I LOVE this game, but I am not the kind of person who are biased. I am extremely and brutally honest with everything in my life, I will never not criticize something just because I love it.
This game has a lot of issues and it needs a lot of fixing, period.
I really wish people could tell the difference between being a fan and being a blind fanboy.
Everything people complains about it is right.. they need to fix it.. if you keep acting like is the best game ever with no flaws they will keep the same mistakes in future games.
GTA had all of this and because people acted like it was the best thing ever we got the same issues on RDR2.
Everything people complains about it is right.. they need to fix it.. if you keep acting like is the best game ever with no flaws they will keep the same mistakes in future games.
GTA had all of this and because people acted like it was the best thing ever we got the same issues on RDR2.
Last edited:
So, I've noticed a lot of goalpost moving in this thread with people talking about general input lag over just the movement.
The original video was meant to look at how laggy the movement is, because that's a common complaint about RDR2. The fact that other actions in the game seem to have lower latency is interesting, because it shows that there's nothing intrinsic to the game that means that there has to be that massive delay between pushing a stick and the animation starting.
In fact, it seems to suggest that in fact the lag when just trying to walk around is probably a bug, and not intended. If that delay wasn't there then the simple act of walking would be more responsive.
The original video was meant to look at how laggy the movement is, because that's a common complaint about RDR2. The fact that other actions in the game seem to have lower latency is interesting, because it shows that there's nothing intrinsic to the game that means that there has to be that massive delay between pushing a stick and the animation starting.
In fact, it seems to suggest that in fact the lag when just trying to walk around is probably a bug, and not intended. If that delay wasn't there then the simple act of walking would be more responsive.
Thread still going huh. Was hoping people would run more of their own tests since so many insist that there is a large amount of variance in input delay between different actions.
I do wish people would stop suggesting that maybe Rockstar is doing this "on purpose" in the sense that they could reduce the delay on any raw input without any other impact on the pipeline and just choose not to. It's insulting to the people that made this game. They are not stupid. It is certainly possible they are making a conscious choice to sacrifice something in terms of their engine to achieve some goal while accepting this trade-off.
This is a perfectly fine test to run, for the record. At least in the long run it is a useful data point. A couple things:
I do wish people would stop suggesting that maybe Rockstar is doing this "on purpose" in the sense that they could reduce the delay on any raw input without any other impact on the pipeline and just choose not to. It's insulting to the people that made this game. They are not stupid. It is certainly possible they are making a conscious choice to sacrifice something in terms of their engine to achieve some goal while accepting this trade-off.
This is a perfectly fine test to run, for the record. At least in the long run it is a useful data point. A couple things:
- The result in this clip is around ~215ms. This is a lot better than Lowe's findings, but it is still a pretty bad result in the grand scheme of things.
- It looks like in this clip you are using an Xbox One controller. Can you tell us whether this is an Xbox One or Xbox One X?
- Can you also run the same test Lowe did on your platform for the comparative data point?
These claims are always hilarious to me. You do realise that on the very same forum you are complaining about literally has several threads and thousands of posts praising this game to the high heavens right? If anything the bigger issue is the mainstream media routinely fail to point out flaws in these big games and all just read like generic praise with a lack of critical analysis of potential issues. If you look at Twitter or Youtube the criticisms of the game are basically exactly the same as the ones you'll find here.
I've heard people on this board straight up say "Stop complaining about the game and go play something else. Rockstar spent 8 years on this with a 97 MC, it's perfect", "The controls/input lag fit the time period". If someone made a list of mental gymnastics that have been used to deflect every little critique of this game it would absurd. Why is it so outrageous to give this game a 7/10? You're just perpetuating the notion that every big game basically has a baseline review score of 8/10. If someone doesn't like the controls and the ultra restrictive mission sctructure is it unreasonable to give the game a 7/10? Is 7 meant to mean the worst game ever?
It continually amazes me on why some people just want their favourite games to have an echo chamber of praise, especially for something like RDR 2 when it's already frothed over 24/7.
This is so spot on. At least with Skyward Sword (another game and swept through the review cycle without proper criticism), that game got shit on hard enough (by fans, not critics) that Breath of the Wild was a direct answer to those criticism. Nintendo EPD listened. GTA 4 and 5 never got that type of scrutiny, or at least Rockstar didn't pay attention to it and it shows.
I agree with this 100%. I think RDR2 is a great game, but I'm not gonna pretend it controls well
Same. Over 60 hours in the game and I love it but the controls cause way too many unintended immersion breaking moments.
I think what stings the most for some is after GTAV they'll have to wait 12-15 years for a good R* game :P
You like the game more power to you :) I just can't deal with the annoyances.
Oh come on, this is some top tier fanboy shit.
This game does many things fantastically. I'm in awe of the world and the interactions with the camp members as much as everyone else.
It definitely does have problems though. Problems that were not as prevalent in the previous game, which I would say was an overall more consistent and tighter product, worthy being called a masterpiece (despite all the initial bugs!). I'm not so sure about that with this game. I cannot remember when a game frustrated me as much as RDR2 does sometimes and that has to account for something. Bugged mission fail states that aren't my fault, overly harsh bounty and honor systems are just some of the things that made it hard for me to love this game at times.
And yes, even before the input lag topic came up I felt that something was wrong with the controls since I had much less trouble manually aiming in RDR1.
This is also not just an Era-wide sentiment. It's widespread. Just listen to the latest Beastcast episode where Vinny says he is not sure whether he is having fun despite being in awe; and Dan proclaiming he is becoming a bit burnt out despite being a huge fan of the previous game and never having felt that way about its Mexico part. A mainstream review in German newspaper Spiegel that I stumbled across wasn't all too positive either.
So yes, while 7/10 would be a bit too low in my opinion given what the game achieves in some areas, I would also agree that this is one these cases where a lot of "professional" reviewers got carried away a bit and maybe let themselves being influenced by the insane hype a bit too much.
Thanks, it's the first reply I received that wasn't straight up dismissal.
I captured this on Xbox One X. TV is a pretty good one, about 14ms of input lag. I do not have time to do comparison to Lowe's right now but I tried to replicate his actions and it definitely feels slower than shooting, or anything else in the game.
I also tested various menus navigation input lag. Didn't have time to make a slowmo to show that off, but it's about 5 frames of lag at 30FPS, so even faster than shooting.
Saying it has input lag doesn't mean people hate the game. Objective criticism is not hate, any sort of criticism doesn't mean people hate the game. Why this over reaction to criticism.
Don't know what to tell you guys.
Nobody here, myself included, are denying the issues with the game.
But anyone claiming that the game doesn't deserve its scores or praise due to said issues are just as disingenuous and narrow sighted as someone who denies the problems it has.
Nobody here, myself included, are denying the issues with the game.
But anyone claiming that the game doesn't deserve its scores or praise due to said issues are just as disingenuous and narrow sighted as someone who denies the problems it has.
It doesn't deserve the 9.7. One of the most important aspects of a game is the gameplay. Arthur moves like a tank and many of the actions are really clunky most of the time.
I've seen games that play much better than this being criticized on that department.. but when it comes to an Rockstar game it just doesn't matter.
For me the game is a 9.0 overall.. you just can't ignore the issues with it like the reviewers did.
So all the reviewers that gave the game a 10 are wrong?
Last edited:
I think that "it's an artistic choice" people are in for a surprise when the PC version comes out and the input lag is half of what it is in console versions (and likely less than half), due to game running at 60FPS, and on a generally faster hardware. It has been that way with every single 30FPS game made so far, and I don't see it changing here.
Yeah they all got together beforehand and engaged in this grand conspiracy to give Rockstar a pass. Digital Foundry too on a technical level. This board has the weirdest relationship with reviews and they often bring out its worst, most childish side -- when a game has been 'slighted' or 'overrated'.
No one is saying it's a collaborated conspiracy but you don't even find it a little bit strange that the game almost got 10s across the board from the mainstream media when there are common complaints on forums, Youtube and Twitter about core mechanics of the game? Questionable controls and ridiculously linear ission design aren't just minor complaints that you can feasibly ignore if you have issues with them. You are basically going the other way and saying people on forums and social media are banding together with unwarranted hate towards the game for no reason.
DF did this kind of analysis last gen (if it hasn't been mentioned already), and GTA IV was one of the worst games with an input lag of like 200 milliseconds. Killzone 2 was similar.
I forget how many frames that is, but they found an average 30fps game was like 100ms and an average 60fps game was around 66ms.
Edit: corrected my post, here's the DF article -- https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
I forget how many frames that is, but they found an average 30fps game was like 100ms and an average 60fps game was around 66ms.
Edit: corrected my post, here's the DF article -- https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-lag-factor-article
First off there are at least just as many positive takes on this forum about RDR2, more in the grand scheme of things. MOST of the complaints against it come down to preference and personal experience which is why this is so silly. No I don't think ultra restrictive story missions are a big deal when I'm going to spend 3-4x that out in the world with complete freedom. They were a nice change of pace and featured some incredible character & story work. Sure there was a small learning curve to some of the systems and mechanics, but nothing crazier than half of the RPGs I play, and it was well worth it. Acting like these are problems inherent to everyone's experience to the point critics and fans have to be buying their head in the sand and giving the game a pass is almost as arrogant as it is wrong.
So no, I don't find it strange. I didn't during similar very loud 'uprisings' against Witcher 3's movement/combat, or BOTW's weapon durability, or MGSV. It's how social media has always operated when anything is divisive.
That's exactly it - the reaction to the game on here is extremely positive overall but with a lot of common flaws that are brought up consistently. Same for other avenues like Twitter and YouTube. What people have a bit of an issue is is that most of the reviews never mentioned or made much fuss about the flaws and were just talking about the positives the entire time which reflects in their scores and the MC.
RDR 2 just once again highlights to me that mainstream media reviews are useless to me for these big AAA games. I already knew this game would have an amazing story, unbelievable visuals and unmatched world detail. What I wanted to know we're the potential flaws and whether the game evolved from their previous design. This is a problem across the board - mainstream reviews just fail to highlight issues and often read like generic praise rather than being a balanced and informative take. The reception from players is more mixed but the "critical" reception is basically 10/10 across the board.
People aren't saying this game is terrible. It's more like how is this game a 97 when there are so many "flaws" that are being brought up by a wide range of players consistently. A perfect example is Witcher 3. That is my favourite game but I know it's flawed as hell in its combat, controls and mission design. It's sitting at 92 or 93 MC which reflects that to me - an amazing that has some flaws.
Well articulated. It's pretty much this, and the ones complaining are repeating themselves in most threads from what I can see, so I don't buy that it's a common sentiment amongst the gaming populace. My YouTube stream is filled with vids gushing over the game and it's details, so it does really depend on what you choose to be sensitive towards, hence breaking the intellectual stalemate by using a collection of independent thought (reviews) as a consensus of its quality, you may disagree along with others but it can't be denied that it's overwhelming recognised as a spectacular game, despite your dissapointment.
Last edited:
Modern reviews are just biased towards giving broken games like this 10/10 scores. This would have definitely gotten a 6/10 from GameSpot of they still used their old scoring rubric of:
Graphics / Sound / Story / Standstill-to-dash Input Lag / Analogue Stick Aim Deadzone Default Settings
Graphics / Sound / Story / Standstill-to-dash Input Lag / Analogue Stick Aim Deadzone Default Settings
Nah, there waaaaaaay more complaints about the game compared to GOW
GoW hasnt sold as much nor scored as well, so it's exposure it somewhat limited in comparison, that's expected. RDR2 was more hyped too, so there's bound to be a larger amount of those that may feel disappointed, doesn't take away from the fact RDR2 will end up dominating GOTY awards, and be regarded as a better game for 2018, and most likely top game this gen.
This post highlights, to me, the exact problem with having an objective score attached to a completely subjective experience. "Oh, I need to dock it a couple tenths for the controls..." Why? What does it matter if it's a 93 or a 97? I'm still processing it and my opinion might change, but as of right now, controls and all, I would say that it's possibly the single best videogame I have ever played. I did have issues with the controls, but they did not matter in the grand scheme of things when it came to whether or not I could enjoy it as a product. So, for me, if I was trying to assign a numeric score, knocking off those tenths doesn't make sense. If I'm comparing to something that I would say had unimpeachable controls, and really no flaws, like a Super Mario World, by your system I would have to give Mario a higher rating. But I would more strongly recommend RDR 2. So the number I assign wouldn't actually reflect my subjective opinion of which game was better. Frankly, I wish more outlets would get away from using numbers at all; Metacritic has us grasping at numbers like they will reveal some objective truth.
I don't really care who "dominates " goty awards. But GOW is in top 10 best selling games of the year and is pretty much considered as top dog for quality this year.
Saying sales is some sort of metric is weird - wouldn't call of duty win every year then ?
I think I get the point you're making about relative speed of combat compared to modern times but I'm super amused by the implication that people were just slower in the past. Like air pressure was higher so everyone moved like they were wading through water or something.
Nah, RDR2 will be the GTAIV of this gen. It may end up winning more GOTY awards, but it will not be fondly remembered even a year from now. God of War has solid gameplay, and will be remembered far more fondly.
Sales was only mentioned with regard to the game having more exposure, and thus mre potential people to be critical of it, not mentioned as support for it being a good game or a GOTY contender.
I agree. The RDR2 honeymoon phase lasted all of about a weekend. It's usually a couple months until the flood of contrarian "actually, X game isn't all that" threads start pouring in.
Interesting read. These points stood out and goes to show how little progress, if at all, has been made in this area as far as Rockstar and game reviewers are concerned:
Yep, my honeymoon period for the game is already over and honestly I was expecting this to be my GOTG.
GOTY this year will be GOW for me, no contest. It's a shame how a masterpiece of an open world like RDR2 can be so flawed and downright annoying at times
Truth. The fact is, it's a testament to how much people actually like this game that even with these shit ass controls we continue to play it.
I actually couldn't care less about reviewers giving this game a 97/100, but it's more than a little bit suspect that the vast majority of these reviews completely omit any issues with the way this game controls. It's one thing to love a game so much that the controls aren't enough for you to dock the score, it's quite another to pretend these issues don't exist. So, yeah, in that sense reviewers giving the game perfect score without ever mentioning this stuff is not only wrong but highly questionable and basically reaffirms why most people don't take professional reviewers seriously.
I will send you $10 if you can get someone who worked on the game to tell you they prefer the game with input lag.
Of course.. we have seen this before and scores means nothing with some companies or game series.
Controls are clunky and the imput lag is terrible
HDR broken or fake since launch
Ps4 Pro Implementation was terrible
Is this a 9.7?
If the game didn't had Rockstar behind it was clearly a much lower score