It is trivial. The game was perfectly fine at 30fps, and because of it, we got awesome animated backgrounds, too.
Yes, so trivial, in fact, that no one ever mentioned it. And as nice as the moving backgrounds are they hardly make an impact on the game play. Once, that's the only time the
Inception effect comes into play and beyond that it's eye candy, hardly worth the sacrificing of something that people have come to expect. Those extra frames matter to the people who play the game more than once, especially because they play other game of the same genre and they can rely on the extra frames and moving from one to the other difference has an impact. It happens every time I go from Bayonetta or DMC3 to DmC.
Also, it's not a solid 30fps but if the game still runs fine then at what point is it to low?
With the game's difficulty the frame rate is not so handicapping that it becomes unbeatable or unplayable, DMC3 didn't have turbo mode till the special edition and it was great then, too, but that was a PS2 game. To take steps back and defending it because it's prettier is counter progressive. What's the next thing we sacrifice as long as it looks pretty?
I feel the same way about DMC4 removing functions from the styles. Yes, there are new functions and moves, but there was no need to remove the old ones just to accommodate the new. Taking a step back right after you took one forward is like not moving at all, as 'after school special' as that sounds. With everything DMC4 decided to leave behind, however, made it less than stellar. Not sure what it is or how it happened, all I know is that DMC3 is better than 4, even if I can't put my finger on the exact reason.
I suppose that it doesn't matter now. If the next DMC game has the same design choices they'll be able to keep the high frame rate and busy environments. They certainly have the processing power now.
If people are mad at the PC version allowing 60fps, then they should get mad about it being able to play at higher resolutions, too. I mean, c'mon, you come to expect the PC games having the capability to have better performance than console releases.
Not sure this one matters, my TV only goes up to 1080, should I be mad at my TV? But, yes, as a PS3 owner I am mad that the 360 version doesn't have those cracks in the shadows and that there is in fact a difference.
But, it's wasn't an "issue," it was a design choice :/
Style over substance? Not the first time it's been done in DMC.
However, we're also arguing on the subject of something complained about by the same people who b!tched about something as trivial as weapon icons always being on screen - "Oh cool, so now they think we can't remember what weapons we have on."
Yes, there were a lot of frivolous complains about the game and because of those the serious complains can be thrown in to that pile and be undermined.
For example:
Serious critic: There is no lock on.
Diminishing retort: You're just mad about the hair.
Works the other way, too. Not a one way street on this one. I've seen it used in all manner of fashion.
My point here is that the people who complain about the game in a real level are the ones with serious critiques and those same critiques are appropriated by people who have moronic issues with the title and trow them all together devaluing the validity of the former's criticism.
Buncha savages in this town, I tell yah.
Fandom is a strange phenomena and when you add the anonymity of the internet you get lower standards of behavior and reasoning, that much is true.
EDIT:
Damn... went on a tirade again.
Sorry about that but I do feel that the lowered frame rate was a genuine and valid critique on the game so I had a bit to say.
Final Fantasy does indeed look good, and I'm not sure what kind of gameplay mechanic it is, if its really just a series of scripted sequences with rpg battles or what not, but even so, I'll be surprised if its 1080p and 60fps, I'm positive it will 30fps when its released... I'd argue compared to the PC version infamous doesn't look that much better than DmC, and we still dont' know if its running at 30 fps or 60 fps.
I don't believe that.
While I'm sure it's possible to have a computer with such power that it rivals or tops new gen I don't believe that there will unable to get high graphic performances on the new councils that we are talking about. I saw the PS4 and X1 at comic con, they were gorgeous, and those were the first titles on the platforms, with more hands on the games will improve in look and performance.
As for the definition exceeding 1080? I don't think they were design to. highest television definition is 1080 so there'd be no planning to exceed it when designing the devices. No different than making the NES run at 1080 when there are no TVs that go that high.
