So, I've discussed this issue with a few exclusively PC-gaming friends of mine and several have scoffed at the notion of a console player having to worry about framerate, but it's a real matter. Yesterday, I impulsively decided to purchase Two Worlds II for my PS3 for $20 (a price that was the maximum I would ever be willing to pay for the game, but it finally dropped to there and I decided to give it a shot) using a leftover Gamestop gift card from the recent holiday season and while I didn't expect a masterpiece and knew it had some performance issues, I didn't think the major reason for my absolute disdain for this game would come exclusively from abysmal, intolerable performance. However, the framerate is crap... no better way to put it. I simply can't stand it.

Technically, it's playable, but it's disorienting and frustrating. This is the worst performance I've ever seen on any console game, but it's not the only poorly-performing game this console generation. No, just recently, there was Skyrim and the framerate of its PS3 version... well, if you haven't heard of the problems, already, go check out the PS3 section of Skyrim's hardware and software issues and take a look at some framerate anolysis videos... keeping in mind this is all before some memory-related issues renders many more experienced character files unplayable due to even further-plummeting framerates. Fallout 3, particularly the GOTY edition, also had some similar issues. Dragon Age: Origins on the PS3 also had a pretty sub-par framerate, at an average of about 24 fps. There are certainly more examples out there, but these are the more prominent ones.

Now, I'm not saying poorly-ported games never existed on previous generations, but of all the things to be performing poorly, the framerate (and directly the playability) of a console game is one of the most important things to establish and I don't recall ever even experiencing framerate dips all that often on previous console generations, yet this console generation not only has those in abundance, but it has plenty of games with just all-around crappy framerates. It kind of defeats the purpose of consoles in the first place, but what's going on here? One thing I have noticed is that most of these poorly-performing games come from previously PC-exclusive developers. Another thing, which may just be more of a biased observation considering my gaming tastes, is that these developers seem to tend to be WRPG, or former WRPG, developers. I know Risen on the Xbox 360 was also pretty poor, but I'm not sure if that was the framerate or something else.

Anyway, yes, it now seems that console players do have to worry about framerate (I would think developers would tune down graphical settings to maintain a stable framerate of around 30, if needed) and although I may certainly be misremembering things from previous console generations (and I would appreciate it if someone could inform me if I'm wrong), either way, this really ticks me off. Can anyone please explain this and, if you wish, please post your grievances and complaints with the current console generation in regards to past ones. For example, I also hate DLC and a tendency to move more towards shorter, more action/shooter-oriented games this console generation, but the framerate issue is something I simply cannot tolerate. I'll leave off on an odd, but true, statement: I cannot play a console version of a game because my console cannot handle it.

i play on xbox, played many of the games you've listed, i've had maybe a few moments of lag in all the games i've played on it. Thats not to say i haven't had issues like crashing or hanging while playing games. I would say that many of the issues on the ps3 come from games being ported and the memory usage being different on the xbox and ps3. Also games and systems are becoming more advanced every cycle, i mean look at an nes compared to what computers could do at the same time. Now look at games for consoles vs. pc, not much of a difference comparability

As for dlc i like it when it adds to the experience of the game, and action/shooter games have always been around, and always been popular, gaming is more popular now so the popularity of action/shooting games is more noticeable

The reson I got a 360 agin after mine died and the warranty expired is things like this. PS3 gets the shaft. This happens imo because devs think "money now, patch later". Patches to fix broken games are getting quite common.

I've played at least 10 games on N64, SegaMegaDrive, PS1, PS2, Xbox, PC, Wii, GameCube, GameBoy Colour - Advanced and AdvancedSP.
All games through to the newest GenConsoles have broken at some point and they will always continue to do so if the developers: Don't get enough time, are incompetent and not motivated.
Or if the Producer: Rushes the game to the shelves, forces unreasonable deadlines, spends more on advertisemant than on the game mechanics.
Or if the Console: Is outdated - MW3 on the white Xbox's being an example

Games need to slow down to the pace of new Consoles, but the Consoles need to speed up to the pace of the Game mechanics.
Its a balance that can only be met for a short period and costs a lot to keep.

I'm on the same page as you, Seti. A console game that is unplayable on the console it was made for is just not acceptable. It's ridiculous. One of the reasons I have a console is so I can buy a game and enjoy it without having to worry at all about if it will play well, but that's not holding so true anymore.

I've already shelved Skyrim until hopefully the performance issues can be fixed. I've moved on to Dark Souls and even this one has performance issues (though at least they are not as bad as the former)!

I haven't noticed too many games on console with crappy performance, but if someone on this forum have played Dark Souls on Xbox (not sure on PS3) and went to Blighttown.. Now that is one of the lowest framrate I've ever noticed on a console game, almost unplayable at it's worst.

There are several new games that suffers from some minor/medium framerate issues aswell.. Consoles are definately starting to show that their current technology is getting outdated..

Consoles have had to deal with crap performance since the early 3D days. I vividly recall how awful the framerate was on a couple of PS1 games when I had played the PC versions first. GTA1 and 2 were some of the absolute worst offenders, I deem the console versions of those nigh unplayable. Hell, not even the Dreamcast version of GTA2 had a decent framerate.

Framerate issues in blight town are on xbox too. Also lggy pvp, as in being backstabbed by a guy infront of you.

I've never seen the same graphics with previous console generations, either.

Framerate is more important than graphics. And content is more important than both, the quality of which has declined as well.

About Two Worlds II, specifically, would Gamestop give me a refund for this game if I explained its terrible performance?

Did you buy it used or new?
Could always try to return it either way.

new

I remember the good ol' days when consoles had their arcade shooters, platformers and JRPGs and PCs had their RTSs, FPSs and WRPGs. You knew what to expect from your preferred platform. Now days (yes, I said "now days", get over it) everyone's trying to release everything on everything and given how different all the architectures are it's amazing we can get any games to work at all.

Yep, this is the first generation I've noticed this too.

I LOVE the Assassin's Creed games, but I've noticed that there tends to be issues with them(mostly tearing problems in certain areas, but some frame-rate issues too).

However, nothing takes the cake quite like Fable 3. No discernible graphics upgrades, and yet it had a consistently sluggish frame-rate compared to the previous installments, especially in Bowerstone.

From my experience, PS3 usually has more technical issues with games (which includes framerate). More likely because they got a bad port than hardware issues.

The reason games are so [censored] these days, is because developers know they can just patch it through the net. Because of that, quality assurance before release declines. And as well, the quality assurance declines because the game can be patched through the net. Kinda like a vicious-circle-thing, I'd say.

Anyone else remember the horrible texture pop-in in the first Gears of War? This generation has had a "graphics at all costs" mindset from the very beginning.

You expect your console to run every modern games with state of the art tech forever? Your question will never be answered if you do not wish to think of the tech aspect. Consoles are computers, they are tech devices, they age and get left behind as new tech rises. Simple as that, it's time to start thinking with your brain.

I expect my console games to be optimized to run properly. If they can't run with a decent framerate then it's the developers fault for not coding it properly, not the fault of the hardware.

Try running Xbox 360 games on xbox. If you expect them to be optimized to that dated device, you are expecting games to stop everything technology wise. You are asking for no improvement in graphics. Hell you are asking the gaming industry to stop for you slow pokes.

That's because of this ridiculous "10 year lifecycle" that Sony/Microsoft are pushing. But it's still unacceptable for a game to run poorly on a system that you can't even upgrade, a good port would make the necessary changes to allow it to run on the lower specs consoles.

Xbox 360 games were not designed to be run on the Xbox. They were designed to be run on the Xbox 360. If they are being sold as compatible with a console, they should run on that console without issue. Graphics can be scaled back relative to other consoles or the PC to make sure that happens.

Console users are not demanding that technology stop progressing. They are demanding that the games they are being sold work as advertised.

They don't optimize console games ported to PCs, why should they do other way around? That development cycle is only half that of developing F-22, they better come up with a console that could fly for next gen.


And what do you get from what's advertised? Did they guarantee you 35+ fps? Advertising is always full of lies and it's nothing new. They put up poor 6, 7 years dated quality textures for PC ports, PC gamers complained and ignored. When my 4 years old computer can run Rage and Skyrim at Ultra settings with next to zero lag, I know something went horribly wrong.

Again, console is tech device, it is a computer in different package, there is never a 100% guarantee that it runs smooth if you have studied some basic computer architectures. 100% compatibility has always been a lie.

No, but every game used to run smoothly in past generations. Hence the title of the thread?

The point is, developers are pushing the consoles too hard because there's too much of an emphasis on eye candy this generation. It's degrading console performance. That's the complaint.

Consoles of the past have created a perceived standard of framerate and performance. This generation isn't meeting that.