It's why, despite its various problems, I just love the feel of Destiny so much I keep playing.
EA Motive's Dan Lowe compares the input response times of RDR2 with Uncharted, Assassin's Creed etc
- Thread starter Toriko
- Start date
There's a mission like that at the first two hours of the game, the train mission.
The cover system is mighty annoying there, haha.
Regular brain: Heavy animations that convey a feeling of weight
Galaxy brain: Heavy animations that convey a feeling of weight after a full third of a second of input lag
Galaxy brain: Heavy animations that convey a feeling of weight after a full third of a second of input lag
If you mean TLOU on PS4 (Not TLOU2) then the input lag would be at least half that of LL, because TLOU is a 60FPS game.
I just don't even notice it? It's not like it's a twitch shooter or something. Maybe when online launches I'll feel it more, but I've played *a lot* of this game and from moment to moment I don't think I could ever call it unresponsive
Dean Evans makes a good point in that thread. Aim a weapon or move at high speed and the input lag isn't as severe (to me it feels easily 65% - 75% more responsive).
I know it's become a meme and shit, but I do think this is intentional. Maybe this was the best way for them to make the walking seem more realistic without having to add extra animation?
(I have no issue with the handling in Red Dead, or GTA for that matter. I'm used to it and am able to control the characters with ease. The only thing I wish they did was have the character take a few steps backwards before turning around, this way you could precisely move around without feeling like you're spinning on the spot trying to pick up a carrot. I see the NPCs taking a few steps back so it would be lovely if we could too.)
I don't think it's that complicated, I think it's more people just want something to happen quickly when you press a button. I think it's safe to say most people prefer a responsive experience.
Yeah, there's another one later in the game (chapter 4) that I just played tonight that I was referring to but that's another good example.
When the game has so many possible actions that you can do at any given moment, something has to give, and in this case it's the buttons having multiple actions mapped to them.
If you want to have a diary that you can pull out and read, or a satchel inventory you can look at, - while also keeping all the other actions available to the player - you have to start coming up with ideas on how to make it all possible.
I believe this is why many buttons have multiple actions mapped to them. There's more actions available to the player at any given moment in this game than most others.
Oh god the UI management is maddening. I don't understand why save load option is under Story Settings when that's all it is.
Not to mention even reading documents after you find them is a problem. Most of the time I accidentally hold the button a little too long and enter the satchet UI instead.
They want it to be immersive with you having hold the document in your hands and forgot you have to wrestle with the UI to even read it.
It's an issue, but for me it's the general feel of the controls that I notice more than the responsiveness. It just doesn't feel like the game reacts the way I want it to a lot of the time.
I'll never fucking understand why it takes a second to start moving the character, its even worst in first person
i'd pay twice the amount of money to have it removed, because i'm probably not going to finish rdr2, just like i didn't finish witcher 3
i'd pay twice the amount of money to have it removed, because i'm probably not going to finish rdr2, just like i didn't finish witcher 3
If Arthur looted a drawer in less time than it takes me to grab something from a drawer it would only be a 9/10 at most, the immersion would be broken!
I'm playing Witcher 3 GOTY version now and the responsiveness is pretty decent, definitely a farcry from RDR2.
The input lag is pretty noticeable especially in first person, reminds me Dishonored 2 (PS4 version).
did they add another quicker option besides the one that added in 1.5 (i think)
He does this stupid half step leap and starts moving, which is still better than nothing
Damn, AC is quite impressive, same goes for Destiny.
As expected, RDR2 has really rough controls.
As expected, RDR2 has really rough controls.
When he says on Twitter that he found variance of 10-26 frames, I feel like that should be stopping people in their tracks in terms of whether this shit is intentional. The high end of what he found in his limited testing is 865ms of fucking delay before the first response to analog stick input. That is legitimately one of the worst results I have ever heard. Hell, ~365ms is awful enough to warrant fixing but if it is fluctuating so much higher than that... I mean if it is intentional, it's one of the worst ideas I've heard in a long time, and worse than if it were just a result of a bug. A lot worse.
I spam sidestep a lot and it actually works. Rarely had to dodge roll anymore. Speccing from light attacks to heavy with the "heft" enchantment was game changing.
uh ok that's cool and RDR2 sure has a lot of delay, but Destiny does not have 1 frame lag, does it?
I'd count from the start of the deflection, and that gives 6 frames of lag, and 16 for RDR2. Unless there's some heavy deadzoning here, but I doubt that would make things speedier more than one frame.
I'd count from the start of the deflection, and that gives 6 frames of lag, and 16 for RDR2. Unless there's some heavy deadzoning here, but I doubt that would make things speedier more than one frame.
OP
OP
It does not have to be a twitch shooter to have responsive controls though. Like that delay in the video adds nothing to the game no? Would you experience have been lessened if he responded immediately but with the same quality of animation?
OP
OP
865 is unpardonable. Like what? Anything over 120 and it starts to feel awful imo.
I wonder if this kind of testing is truly neutral since the tester himself is working at EA. I myself will doubt the result since to truly test something, you should not associate any personal feeling to it
Edit: sorry. A mistake. I thought destiny was published by EA :|
Edit: sorry. A mistake. I thought destiny was published by EA :|
I'm not defending it, I'm just saying with the style of game and how it leads me to naturally play I don't feel it at all, where as input lag in a CoD or Destiny or something is instantly more noticeable. It would probably be better without it, but the pace and style of the game means it doesn't even register with me. That's why I think Online will be so interesting, because if it ever was going to register it'd be there, especially if it's exclusively free aim
I haven't played in first person, but I bet it would stick out a lot more with it. FWIW I played through the entirety of GTA V in first person and eventually got used to the movement (and prefer it over third person), but with the lag being greater here idk if I would even want to try first person for log periods of time
This is true for me. Witcher 3 was fine, but RDR2 felt way to weighty.
Yeah, in terms of overall input delay Destiny 2 does not have 1 frame of lag. His metric here is a bit odd (and one I personally wouldn't use), but you can pretty safely compare these results within this specific context at least.
I didn't see the video, but did the author subtract frames of lag added by his TV, like for example DF does when doing this kind of analyses?
He must have, I guess, otherwise the Destiny measurement would be impossible.
He must have, I guess, otherwise the Destiny measurement would be impossible.
Literal quantification of what I've been saying, the controls are shit. And yet people will keep defending them. The game is great, but in spite of the controls.
The little graph is mostly comparing the time between full stick angle and animation response in the video playback. So the initial stick angle is some frames earlier than that (in Destiny's case 5 or 6 frames I think), but it includes the delay of the display since we're counting frames from a video recording of the display itself.
A bit out of topic since there is no better timing than this. But i think a bit too realistic ruins the fun. I want the environment and the vibe be realistic, not the control. There should be a limit to that
In gaming, you cannot simulate control movement as realistic as it is in real life. Our technology hasnt reached that part yet. After all, we are playing a game, we cannot simulate movement as we want to in the game in precise way
This seems pretty intuitive for anyone who's played these games, but still cool to see the hard data.
This game is puzzling.
The missions, the combat, the controls are all mediocre to bad with some good reviews as well saying the opposite.
Seems really mixed reception so far. It's like, I want it but hearing the negative things about it makes me not want it. Ugh.
The missions, the combat, the controls are all mediocre to bad with some good reviews as well saying the opposite.
Seems really mixed reception so far. It's like, I want it but hearing the negative things about it makes me not want it. Ugh.
Streaming RDR2 will provide the true realistic, weighty experience. Hithertofore unreached levels of immersiveness.
My sentiments to the tee. Shooting feels as responsive as any other shooter. Everything else was intentional.
It's been this way with GTA for a long time already, so i don't get why everyone is so surprised at how heavy moving around feels in RDR2.
Playing DMC5 will feel like "DEJA VU! I've just been in this place before!"
I'm not defending this but should all games really be as responsive as possible, is it really that bad when they don't and can it affect realism?
On the head. Regardless of how much stock you put in world-building/narrative versus gameplay, Rockstar's movement model is objectively dated, unintuitive, and feels very poor. As others have said, it can and has been done without sacrificing responsiveness/satisfying feedback.
In an ideal critical world that doesn't embarrassingly froth over open worlds and superficial minutiae, outlets would be docking serious points for your RDRs of the industry, which are – to a point – video games that really don't play that well.
Just to clarify, that seems to be a typo and he seems to have meant 10-16 frames.
https://twitter.com/danlowlows/status/1059146652152262656
Which is still very bad and way beyond the 5-6 frames that only the most sensitive people can notice.
I'm still really surprised it was basically never mentioned in the various reviews.
I also don't really agree that it's only the left stick movement which has the input lag.
Other actions might be slightly lower, but it's not going to drastically drop down to 3-4 frames for some actions after hitting 10+ frames for a simple action.
I played around last night and even simple actions like drawing and holstering your gun feel like they have a half second delay.
The reason why it feels more responsive while moving for most people is because it's basically impossible to see the various state changes/response times
because it is expertly masked with the complex animations. It might be slightly lower in those cases than the walk animation, but it was still noticeable in other simple actions for me.
I am fairly sensitive to input lag however.
I really feel like the idea that someone is actively programming the game to increase input delay on actions is one of the craziest things ever.
It's R* though so it almost seems likely. lol
With modern engines and consoles baseline input lag is higher than ever and most teams put a lot of resources into reducing it as much as possible.
Does GTA V on PC have less input lag than the console version? Just curious because I know PS3 was bad, PS4 was slightly less bad... don't know how the PC version fared.
If I'm not dodge rolling out of attacks while counting invincibility frames, what even is the point of video games!?
Input lag has not once, to my knowledge, been intentional. If it was, then it would have been there in equal amounts in the PC releases of various games, and would not decrease with higher frame rates. But that's never been the case. Reason for input lag is always that the systems affecting character or camera movement are too slow and conplex.
Of course it had much less input lag. Especially if you'd run the game in 60FPS. On top of that, PC monitors have way less processing lag than just about any TV set.
Last edited: