• SuddenDownpour@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    9 months ago

    A developer tells this anecdote from a project from the PS2 era. They showed a pretty late build of the game to their publisher, very few weeks before the game had to be ready to begin the distribution process, and the FPS appeared at a corner of the screen, never quite falling below 30FPS, but often making important jumps. The people from the publishing company said that “Everything about the game looks fine, except for the FPS. 30 FPS is unacceptable, and we cannot publish it if you can’t reach a consistent 60 FPS”.

    You don’t need to know much about development to understand that making such a demand weeks before the launch of a medium-sized project is asking the impossible, and so did this dev team. In the end, they changed the function that took the real calculation of the FPS so that it returned a fraction of the difference between 60 and the real FPS, so the next time the publisher took a look at the game, the FPS counter would always show a value between 58 and 60, even though they didn’t have the time to really optimize the game. The publisher didn’t notice the deception and the game was a commercial success.

  • Underwaterbob@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    9 months ago

    Meh. 60 is enough for me. I didn’t notice 144 being that much better than 60.
    30 can fuck right off though.

    • SgtAStrawberry@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      I can go down to 30 probably a bit lower as long as it is consistant, that is the most important part.

      It can also have a bit to do with me powering through Watch Dogs at 1 fram per second in some parts. You never notice how good 25-30 is until your frames starts camping in the singel digits.