Given up on PS2 after GU11. Tried Bioshock Infinite, getting 142FPS on ultra...

Standard for me with PS2 was about 25FPS on a good day when I wasn't looking straight at a wall and I've spent many hours looking at overclocking, userini tweaks and investing in new hardware over it.

One word. Optimization.

You can't compare those two as they use different game engines.

Does Bioshock Infinite have ~400 real players fighting in the same base / building at the same time? ...didn't think so.

Apples and oranges really. Planetside is terribly optimized, not only for multi-core, but also the single core optimization is rather bad, which is why you will almost never see even one core maxed out. However it is a very unfair comparison; It is a lot harder to get good cpu performance out of a massive online game with so much information being sent to everyone, compared to a single player semi linear game with much smaller world and a lot fewer players (npc in this case) at once.

The trick is, does PS2 even render those people ?


What deeply bothers me is how I get the same (crappy) FPS on both Very low and Ultra

1/10 made me reply.

Isn't this your fifth/sixth I'm leaving thread? And yes, I have been keeping track

Tell me about it. My friends and I just play on ultra. If the game is gonna run like **** anyway, may as well look good doing it

I will say however, it is currently running better than it ever has. So they have been improving it (for me anyway). It's usually playable for me nowadays. There was a time when I couldn't really play this game (same hardware).

Its apples and shotguns actually. Many people throw around the term "optimization" or "XX game performs at XX", but frankly not enough understand what it means under the hood. The Crux of the argument is the lack of understanding, along with a stubborn closed minded attitude to break that barrier. Why would they when its so much easier to blame the thing instead of learning what they can from it...... Its almost as bad as watching US law makers have any discussion concerning the Internet.

142fps in Bioshock infinite? I didn't know Bioshock is an MMOFPS.

The low fps during fights in this game have nothing to do with your gfx card and everything to do with the netcode that is burning up your cpu.

Plus as others have said a singleplayer game has crap all for the cpu to do most of the time past a few ai threads which won't even make an old core2duo break a sweat.

I doubt bioshock would run very well if it were multiplayer and tried to display 100+ people on the screen.

So if I installed WoW that would run at 25FPS on the same hardware too?

Are you saying that when you get to an area in wow that has more than a handful of players it doesn't run at 25fps or less?

Wow has some of the worst netcode in existence but as you rarely are in a place with more than a few players it never really rears its head to pilfer all your fps.

Raids don't count as those are instanced on their own server.

Not all of them. Probably no more than 40-60.
That is because the GPU is not the bottleneck, the CPU is. :/

I run at 120 fps on lowest and 60ish on ultra I think and 40ish on super ultra. Wow has cartoony graphics and long cast spells and some melee animation. If you lag in a 20 man raid or in alterac valley you need a new comp. With that considered maybe they should have used the engine from TF2 to make PS2. It might look cartoony but death perception is easy and there would probably be very little lag.

An 8 core cpu the bottleneck over the gpu O.O. When I turn FPS on and there is a lot of stuff to render it shows it switches to the gpu.

Why are we comparing an MMO to a non-MMO? Every single MMO has to deal with performance issues caused by rendering tons of models and calculating physics for all of them clientside.

Also, I don't have super high end hardware (CPU+GPU cost is $500), and I run the game on a mix of High/Ultra settings, with shadows on low (but turned on), and it looks fantastic. Would it look better at full Ultra with everything totally maxed? Yeah, but it's well beyond what I consider "good enough" for me.

This is at 2560x1600, mind you. I could play at 1920x1080 like the majority (plurality, actually) of folks do, and my FPS would almost double.

I wish I could downvote the OP. :|

I think this is a brash misunderstanding on how game optimization works. Bioshock is first and foremost a single player game. If you had attempted to take its multiplayer and create 400+ person battles on its current engine, it would go home crying to its mom. It just doesn't work that way.

There are reasons why the SOE development team has won technological awards for what it does. I'm not talking about Higby or the art crew (though, they have a good deal of merit to its success). I'm talking about the code junkies that try and balance every ebb and flow between performance and quality. It is really a marvel and I think a lot of PS2 players take it for granted.

This thread is the very reason that developers can get away with this sort of thing. Phanbois crawl out of the woodwork and defend them to the bitter end; not having any more of an idea of 'whats going on under the hood' than the same people they condescend to, pretending that somehow they have some sort of insight into the game's code. While PS2 developers have never come out and admitted the code is sloppy, they have repeatedly said that they are working on optimization - meaning they know there is room for improvement. And why wouldnt there be? They shoehorned an MMOFPS game into an engine designed for Everquest. Apples and Oranges as the phanbois would say.

Its not just 400 man battles where the problem lies. Its 96 man battles. Its 64 man battles, its 32 man battles - anything larger than a couple half full squads going at it destroys framerates, regardless of settings. I could forgive it if it only happened when the entire server population was crammed into one base. But 15fps when there is one Platoon of friendlies and zero enemies around is inexcusable, and simply saying 'well this is am MMOFPS game' is no ***** reason - its an excuse. If you cant do something right, just dont do it. You cant give consumers something so great in concept but frustrating in practice without having a lot of complaints - and elitist phanbois who think no one should ever complain about it.

This game is slated for release on the PS4. The PS4 runs on an AMD 8 core Jaguar chip, at 1.6ghz. This chip is a successor to the Bobcat chip, designed to compete with the Intel Atom chip. You know, the chip they put in low end netbooks. If this game is to run on such hardware at even a paltry 30fps, the code absolutely has to be better than what we have now. Which means its completely possible and possibly even practical to do so.