XB1-X Feedback | Forums

[Some Old Trees]

Preface: The vast majority of my playtime in For Honor is in a group of 2-3 players running VS. AI with matchmaking disabled. I stopped playing in match-made games a long time ago as I have a 1GB synchonrous connection with between 1MS and 3MS latceny to my ISP (about 27MS latency to XBL) and I was constantly waiting to sync with game hosts that clearly had a lower quality connection than I did. Sorry if that sounds elitist - It's not my intention, but it definitely gave me more than enough reason to play the game the way I do now.


I think the game is actually prerty fun - It's been almoset a year and I'm still playing it pretty reguarly, which means a lot.

My feedback to the developers is this:

Having purhcased and setup the XB1-X recently, I've noticed that the game runs MUCH smoother, even without a patch. It does seem to have a more consistant 30FPS with absolutely zero dips beloew that, where I used to experience the occasional drop in frame rate on the XB1. This is absolutely amazing. Now being a "gamer" probably means something different to everyone, but when I say that I've been a gamer for a long, I mean that I have played games both casually and competatively across all platforms for many years. I don't think that consoles are better than PCs, and I don't think that PCs are better than consoles - I think that most games fit better one one of the two plafforms and that you should play games for one the platform that suits them best. I can't imagine a workd where Dota II is playable on consoles without a mouse and keybaord, and I have no interest at all in playing 2D or 3D fighters on my PC. There is more nuance than this, but overall I think you get my point.

For Honor, being playable on both PC and console is not unique that regard, but it does make for some interesting observations now that the consoles are (thanks again to the XB1-X) are begining to reach parity with mid-range gaming PCs.

For Honor looks beautiful at 60 FPS. I think that a the design team did a lot of good work in both modeling and animatronmics to make the movements fluid and prceise, and at framerates lower than 60 FPS, players not getting the full experience. Now, resolution matters - make no mistake. If you on a 1080p TV or monitor, than the difference between a game that runs natively at 720p and a game that renders natively at 1080p is clear as day. It's a better visual experiecne no matter how you slice it. And if you one a 4K TV (which I do) it's even better, but the step up in visual fidelity between 1080p and 2160p is nowhere near as important as the jump between 720p and 1080p, even though the total number of pixels is many times more. I could go into details about the pixel density or the fact that the average display size (65") in the 4K era is much larger than the average display size (40") of the 720p and 1080p TV era.... but then I would Apple, trying to make moiuntains out of molehills for the sale of selling my point (or iPhones).

So why am I talking about resolutions and refres rates? Well, the anwer is simple; I've been all over reddit, which I hope that someone at Ubisoft is also doing, looking for player feedback on the game. And the overal consnsus has me worried. THe XB1-X should have absolutely no trouble at all running For Honor at 1080p, 60 FPS. It won't have any major issues running it at 2160p, 30 FPS, and it's very likely that the console could handle 2160p at 60 FPS, but I could understand a case made against that. However, the overall vibe I get from the community is that 60 FPS won't hit consoles, and instead those players will only get 4K texture assets. And the reason for this is the silliest thing - it seems that people actually beleive that players running the game at 60 FPS will have some sort of tactical advantage over the players that run the game at 30 FPS. It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

Within just the PC ecosystem, there are PCs that run the game at sub-30 FPS because some people with crappy PC's still want to play modern games, and there is the opposite end of the scale where people who ahve more money than sense can by quad SLI setups and play pretty mcu hanything at 144 FPS or higher. And I don't see any complaints from PC players saying they always loose to players with better PCs.

There are currently no Monitors or TVs on the market that have less than a 60Hz Panel, meaning 60 FPS is very acheiveable without visial tearing. And in the PC eccosystem, with the advent of G-Sync and FreeSync, there is a steady increase in the number of 100Hz, 120Hz, and 1144Hz displays on the market, specifically becuase higher frame rates are easier than ever to acheive, the visual quality is much more apparent.

In the competative realm of PC gaming, 30 FPS is below the minium requirement. The barrier for entry on any eSport like DoTA 2, LoL, or CSG is 60 FPS capable hardware. Yet consoles are still operating on the assumption that 30 FPS is some kind of standard. It's not. Plain and simple. With the new hardware, Ubisoft and start to elevate console gaming out of this nonsense and give it a fair shake.

Even with my current year model 4K display, I'd rather play the game at 1080p 60FPS than 4K 30FPS, and that's a choice I think any experienced gamer would also happily make. It won't upset the game economy, it won't affect player skill parity, but it will make your game look better and show that Ubisoft really is working towards a future and not stuck in the past.

[Vordred]

And the reason for this is the silliest thing - it seems that people actually beleive that players running the game at 60 FPS will have some sort of tactical advantage over the players that run the game at 30 FPS. It's the most absurd thing I've ever heard.

and thats the most absurd thing i've ever heard.

[Some Old Trees]

So you also beleive that there would be an advantage? Care to explain it?

Since For Honor has a fairly unique network setup and this a combination of P2P and Hosted servers, all of the actual scorekeeping is handled locally by the clients in line with the collision detection and so on.

Imagine a timeline of a few seconds where you hit a button to attack me and that button press is sent over the network to me so that I can tell your cahracter is swinging his sword/axe/etc. The only metric that matters in terms of my reaction time is the latency of the connection, and in real world applciation, this a matter of between 40 and 120 miliseconds... or about 1/4 of the total time it takes for the fastest animation in the game. So if the act of performing a light attack is a total of 60 frames or 30 doesn't change the fact that it takes a full second to complete, and it doesn't change the fact that latency is still the ONLY means of knowning when your attack begins and my reaction can begin.

In either scenario, frame rate means nothing but visual fluidity. There would difference latency.

[Vordred]

that old argument, yes, the amount of time the attack takes remains the same. it's not about that, it's about how you perceive the information. the smooth more fluid image is much easy your brain to process and thus react too. that goes double for if we are talking about timing for a parry.

it's like lets say we take a Shooter, and your are standing there looking at a gap between two buildings, now someone runs out from behind the building and it takes 1 - 2 seconds from when he comes into your view and then back out again.

if the imagine is a nice smooth 60 frames a second, it very easy for you to pick up on that movement, work out where he is going to be and make the shot.

but now lets say we drop the frame rate right down, so now he skipping across the screen, it still takes the same amount of time for him to get across the gap, he will be in the same place at the same time as before, but it's way harder for you to work out where you need to make the shot.

now obviously 30 frames isn't really jerky, but it still applies, a nice smooth image is just much easy to read, and thus reacting and timing your reactions is easier.

plus just from playing both on Console and PC myself, there is a difference.

[Some Old Trees]

"oh that old arguemtn"

SIgh... civility really is dead isn't it. Some people just can't help but sling barbs. lol.

I am sorry that the weight of your arguemnt is that it 'seems easier' or 'feel more fluid'. I would love you to quantify those things for me. Or show me a single shred of imperical evidence that demotrates a difference in the performance of players with 30 FPS capable machines vs players with 60 FPS capable machines.

I'll save you the time - other people have already done this work on very competative games that operate in smaller time frames For Honor. There isn't a difference. Check YouTube and watch some Dota 2 & LoL players illustrate this exact point.

[Vordred]

i wasn't slinging barbs, it's just that is the common argument, is that it still the same amount of time. sorry if you find that somehow offensive.

and hahaha you're using LoL and Dota as your examples?? of course it doesn't make a difference in those games.

they aren't twitch based fighting or shooting games.

[Some Old Trees]

I also referenced CSG which is very much a 'shooting game'. But the fact that you would dismiss DoTA 2 as not being "twitch based".... I'm honestly not sure what you mean by that.

I would encourage you to play DoTA - it's one of the most skill-based competative games out there, and there is a reaosn I mentioned it as one of the three games I brought up. These three games are functionally the only tenable examples of successful eSports. No one is lining up to play the latest Tekken in virtual arenas. For Honor is the frst 3D fighter to have ashot at being a real eSport in a long while and the 3 biggest players in that market are DoTA 2, League of Legends, and Counter Strike. All of which are playable on PC - which has users playing on disparate hardware, at variable frame rates.

Frame rate amount to a more enjoyable experience, but not a competative advantage - I suppose you could bring up the extreme arguement that if you're playing a game on such dated hardware that it can only run at sub 30 FPS you would have a disadvantage... but that's not really the topic. The point I am making is that 99% of people playing games competatively are doing so within the range of 30-144 FPS, and no one is crying about hardware advantages on those platforms.

[Vordred]

ok, well for starts, not i don't consider Dota a twitch based game, it is not reliant on your reflexes. it's more about making reads and good plays.

as for no one is lining up to play fighting games, yeah cause EVO doesn't exist. but quite frankly i don't see how Esports have anything to do with it. plus you think any of those Esports Pro players are playing their games at 30fps. i highly doubt it.

but lastly i shall say, have you played for honor on PC running at 60fps? because ask anyone that has, and they will tell you the same thing, that it's easier to react to stuff on there.

it's also why pretty much all competitive multiplayer game coming to Xbox one X and PS4 pro, the devs have said they will not up the Frame Rate, because everyone else knows, that will cause problems between players running 30 and players running 60

[Some Old Trees]

And we're back as square one where you are, to turn a phrase, using the question to answer.

I play all kinds of games on both PCs and consoles. This was made clear in my original post. I've played Forn Honor on PC and console and have functionally the best performance money can buy. 144+ FPS was no more advantageous in game where it all boils down to the 300-400 millisecond response times that have to follow visual quees that are only a handful of frames. Attack starts and iwthin a fraction of a second I am either going to block it or not - how many frames it takes to connect or be blocked simply doesn't matter.

Finally, it is clear to me that you've no idea what DoTA is. the actual gameplay is as twitch based as it gets - it is down to the millisecond response times and placement, and the primary barrier of skill is about collaboration and teamwork. If you think developing a 'good play' is going to get you anywhere, it's not the game for you. It's the very definition of a 'twitch' game because yout twitch like reactions mean the difference between winning and loosing a match.

Also, EVO, as an entire grouping of fighting games ranging from Virtua FIghter to Street Fighter, ot more obscure games draw a smaller growd annually than any given local torunament for LoL, and the DoTA 2 open has the largest prize purse of any eSPort. They have massive player bases and are the games that broguth eSports into existence. just becuase something like EVO exists, and you can find it on youTube, doesn't make it a benchmark

[Vordred]

well good for, that you feel higher frame rate feels not different. but you will be hard-pressed to find many others that agree with that.

and sorry but i disagree with Dota and LoL being twitch based games. sure being quick with your clicks certainly helps, but the whole game is not based on your reactions.
and i never said EVO was huge, but you made it sound as if no one cares about fighting games in Esports.

and Personally i don't care about Esports anyway, never watch any of it, don't watch streamers either, i would rather play my games than watch other people play.

so anyway we will leave it there, clearly neither of us are going to agree on the 30fps vs 60fps, and the whole esport thing isn't really even relevant anyway

plus kind of a pointless discussion anyway, because they are not going to make it 60fps on xbox one x, unless they do it to xbox one aswell.