It’s unfortunate that it’s missing all that stuff but for people like me whose first experience with the games is this HD collection, it doesn’t seem like that big of a loss, really. As long as the main content and gameplay is 100% there, the rest just seems a bit trivial.
Yeah, well, emulating doesn’t provide a healthy comparison, does it? Not really arguing over the use of emulators, just noting that MGS3 will never look and run properly on the emulator. My reasoning was that fat PS2s are cheap as dirt nowadays - seemed a no-brainer for me a the time. Got mine for 20 pounds w/ 2 dualshock’s including delivery.
Speaking for FPS in MGS3 running on PS2 - it never actually dips down low enough to care during cutscenes, leave alone the actual gameplay.
Never really was into that 60fps mumbo-jumbo - call me conservative, but 23.967 is the way to go.
I haven’t actually owned an MGS3 before HD collection was out, but was considering buying it along with a fat PS2 long before HD collection was announced. I was thinking about actually buying HD collection - but then the all the details started to pop out - that’s where I decided to buy a PS2.
Don’t regret a single bit.
Except that’s only applicable to movies.
With videogames you do want a smooth high framerate. Try playing a racing game at 30 fps and then again at 60 fps. Makes a world of difference.
Tho for a game like MGS, 30 fps would be enough for a steady experience all the way through but since they were able to do 60, I call that a win.
Not enough difference to give a rat’s ass unless I’m playing Quake 3 online. Maybe.
And definitely not worth the extra money for a more powerful gaming rig - I always capped games to 30fps whenever I could.
H-how. I had to play San Andreas at 24 fps because some parts would screw up at anything higher and I wanted to claw my eyes out. I can play like that if really necessary but it’s never ideal for me.
Car stunts are basically impossible at high framerates in San Andreas PC, you gotta turn on the frame limiter to do them.
Back then, developers would sometimes tie gameplay mechanics to the game’s framerate for some reason, so when played at higher or lowers framerates, the games would behave incorrectly.
I really wish Rockstar made “HD” versions of the games for PC, with fixed controls and more compatible with modern systems.
Dunno, maybe I’m just less anal retentive about the whole thing.
But I always preferred 24-30 fps (provided it was consistent). While 60fps always stroke me the wrong way.
I prefer 60 FPS where I can get it but I agree with you ODB its generally not worth the money. A solid 30 FPS is good enough.
I play a lot of my modern games with <24FPS and I can assure you that it’s perfectly playable.
Old games, though, I can’t really say.
I’m playing Space Hulk right now and that’s capped at 15 fps, but it’s pretty slow paced.
Still it works for it. IMO what’s acceptable as playable really depends on how each game functions.
Who in their right mind would cap a game at 15 fps? Is that the actual game or where you yourself decided to cap it?
Edit: It looks like some top down 2D thing. Might not be too bad in that instance.
No, this is the game I’m playing
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UTKl6UvRrw
it’s an FPS/RTS hybrid, and the only reason I even noticed it was 15 fps was because I enabled fraps
With how slow you move and turn it plays fine
In singleplayer games, 30fps is ideal, tho in multiplayer, anything less than 60 makes you fuc*** up, when it comes to first person shooters, 100 isn’t enough 0_o
Hardly.
Higher is always better, as long as it doesn’t* break game mechanics / physics or introduce graphical problems.
EDIT: *result in technical issues. (/adds strikethrough tags to wishlist)
Same with movies - I cringe every time I see a pan shot stuttering and/or smearing across the screen, or when a fast action scene is reduced to an almost incomprehensible mess because the framerate is too low to show the movement without visible jumps between frames (or using slow shutter speed / huge amounts of motion blur to compensate).
Higher isn’t always better. You can play old PC games and your PC will draw so many frames higher than necessary you could overheat.
That’s why you force vsync through your drivers if possible.
Higher to the extent that your monitor can show. Obviously you don’t want 1000 fps with a 60Hz monitor. That’s why, like Maxey said, use vsync or a framerate limiter.
Some older games have their own low framerate limits, and some DOS games (and early windows games) even have game mechanic functionality tied into the framerate so if your fps is even a little too high it messes up how the game functions.
Thankfully dosbox should take care of that, tho.
How did the MGS5 thread become a dosbox thread?