N64 was 20ish years ago, GTA V was 5 years ago. Not even remotely a fair comparison.
15 fps in the 90s was terrible then and is still terrible. We tolerated it then because we had too.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
EA Motive's Dan Lowe compares the input response times of RDR2 with Uncharted, Assassin's Creed etc
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
N64 was 20ish years ago, GTA V was 5 years ago. Not even remotely a fair comparison.
15 fps in the 90s was terrible then and is still terrible. We tolerated it then because we had too.
OP
OP
Really stupid take. Naughty Dog's game designer disagrees and gave a more apt response
He works for naughty dog..
So yeah, that actually says a lot for someone from ND to say that about another company.
Yeah, I felt the same way. The delay whether it's intentional or not, it actually helped me with enjoying the game more.
Assassin's Creed used to be better with their control until they changed it in Origins and Odyssey. Now you just run like Superman and it makes the character very floaty and arcadey. I actually hated how they changed that in Origins and Odyssey.
RDR2's input response time is absolutely fine. It goes well with the game design and it's very fitting.
While I don't mind the lagginess in the controls of RDR2 as much, I absolutely and totally understand why someone would not like it. Same goes for all the 'chores' in the game like eating on time, taking care of horse and camp, moving slowly and doing mundane things. I don't mind them but understand why someone just won't stand it.
Actually, I won't have minded if these things were removed either way.
Actually, I won't have minded if these things were removed either way.
So, what are your thoughts on the other ND employee chiming in to say the game controls poorly?
I didn't really feel grabbed by Destiny 2, but seeing that graph in the OP explains why it was head-shot city wielding a hand cannon at 144fps.
You mistake slow animations with response time. The chart above gives the number of frames between frames and "any kind of response". That would mean that it takes way to many frames before the character even flinches to start to jog.
I would agree, but Rockstar games have all suffered the same "weight" since.... ever?
OP
OP
The same thoughts I have for anyone else who say the game controls poorly.
Change the garbage default settings. I have made a very detailed post on the best adjustments that make this game feel much better to play.
If only I was not a junior, I'd make a thread about it so it'd get more attention.
And this entire thread is ridiculous, because as I was arguing with you in the other thread, the input lag on this one action is not consistent with all other actions in the game.
And if someone is willing to get scientific with it, that would be great because I know for damn certain I'm right about that.
Last edited:
If there's one thing I've come to learn as a veteran of the Internet Wars, it's that hot takes have no preference of host, and once afflicted, said host, no matter their station, will disperse said take.
i'm considering it the gaming version of 'stockholm syndrome': 'rockstar syndrome'. inordinately high number of incidences among game reviewers, in particular :) ...
Amen. It's been pretty frustrating to engage with people just flat out denying all criticism(and I mean deny not even engage and just disagree and showcase how maybe certain criticism is misguided, it's just a general attitude of if you don't like this you don't get it) and pretending the game is perfect in every way as if their life depended on it.
I like the game a lot myself but because of that I would love to engage in dissecting the experience more but a majority of what I'm reading is "this is the best, greatest, etc" it's as if people are so scared of giving the game it's rightful credit of being able to stand tall despite its flaws resulting in discussion of such shallow nature that does the game insane injustice. If all people have to say about the game that it's great it really makes me question if anyone has engaged with any of it.
So you don't like tight and responsive controls?
Maxing out the sensitivity and zeroing out the dead zone doesn't remove the input lag or the excessively long animations required to do just about anything in the game. Rockstar simply decided to prioritize presentation over playability and no amount of tweaking will change that.
What a bad take from that Naughty Dog animator.
ridiculous and embarrassing.
So if an animator from ND praises the game, it means a lot coming from them.
But if a designer from ND criticizes the game, they are uninformed and are probably playing on garbage default settings?
Hmmm....
I still find it hard to believe the idea that the input lag is more than halved for other actions compared to this one as you seem to think,
but if someone does a test similar to the one I posted for GTAIV it would certainly be interesting.
If you end up being right I guess I will have to stop blaming all those trees I ran into on the unresponsive controls.
Grand Thef Auto controlled terribly, and it still controls terribly.
I don't understand how people can play these things. I bought GTA V for a second time when this gen rolled around, thinking the frame rate boost would make it feel better (couldn't even bring myself to finish the first mission on PS3). It's a lot better, but it's still ass.
I decided I probably wouldn't enjoy RDR either since from what I've heard movement is even more awkward.
What a bad take from that Naughty Dog animator.
Yikes. Embarrassingly stupid.
Sure, the animations will still be there. There's no getting around that.
But the concerns with bad aiming / combat ARE easily fixed. Along with the complaints about tapping X/A to run.
Those are major things that hinder this game's playability, especially for the extremely gameplay-critical community here on Era.
You're never gonna make Arthur feel like a Dark Souls character though, and that's just how this game was designed.
Knowing the tastes on this board, this game was never going to be popular/praised here. That's why you see so many posters asking "how the hell did this game get a 97 meta".
Because game critics take more into account than Arthur feeling like a JRPG character when he moves.
I'm not sure why you keep saying and posting your settings like they suddenly make the controls fantastic. At best they go from unplayable to just tolerable.
Weird, I never even noticed.
Just went back and played a bit, and I guess if I'm specifically looking for it I'd notice it, but otherwise it feels fine to me.
Just went back and played a bit, and I guess if I'm specifically looking for it I'd notice it, but otherwise it feels fine to me.
I'm going to look around and see if I can find a suitable camera to do some GTAV PC testing. On PC we can use a keyboard and bind an action key to a keyboard key that has an LED indicator so we can get some more precise indication of switch activation compared to an analog stick or thumb pressing a button.
Why do people claim that changing the settings is some sort of miracle cure for the game?
I've done all that and the game still feels bad.
And no, it's not just flicking the left stick.
Everything in this game feels slow, heavy and unresponsive.
OP
OP
Hmmm. I see. I don't think I was around gaming forums back in the GTA4 days. Ah well. I liked GTA 4. :)
Right. They course corrected with V though.
That makes RDR2 extra weird.
I don't think JRPGs control this badly. But you are correct in stating that game critics (and AAA gamers in general) tend to favor writing and presentation over gameplay.
They are not a miracle cure.
They do not make Arthur suddenly feel like a FromSoft character.
They DO however fix major issues with the playability of the game, mostly in terms of combat/aiming and getting rid of tap-X-to-run.
They make a big difference. Enough to make the game playable and fun with free aim + no aim assist. I played through the entire game that way.
OP
OP
tbf GTAV too did not control well. Better than 4 and def better than RDR2 as far as I remember but still not ideal.
Like I said isn't he post you quoted, they've probably become even more sluggish.
I don't find it surprising at all that games with bad controls are so easy that the super mass market can play them. Games with precise responsive controls tend to ask more of players by design, and therefore must have impeccable response to player input to avoid feeling broken and unfair to the player.
I didn't know Naughty Dog employed 13 year olds because this is some early teenage level argument. "Jealous devs".... Lol. It wouldn't surprise me if he was also a console warrior.
How does a high review score suddenly mean that a professional developer criticising a game is only doing so out of malice?
I think there was a GDC presentation about that topic (on a phone, cant look for it now).