Why does the old version start twice as fast as the new version?

Not every hardware component has advanced at the same rate over the last twenty years. We have exponentially more memory for storing things like textures, models, and sound files, but the speed at which we can load those assets into said memory has not increased at the same rate.

TBF, modern SSD/Hybrid Drives are exponentially faster than the old janky CDROM in the PSX.

I believe the CD drive was 2x (2 Megabits / sec) with a 200ms seek time.

Why does the old version start twice as fast as the new version?

Not every hardware component has advanced at the same rate over the last twenty years. We have exponentially more memory for storing things like textures, models, and sound files, but the speed at which we can load those assets into said memory has not increased at the same rate.

TBF, modern SSD/Hybrid Drives are exponentially faster than the old janky CDROM in the PSX.

Why does the old version start twice as fast as the new version?

Not every hardware component has advanced at the same rate over the last twenty years. We have exponentially more memory for storing things like textures, models, and sound files, but the speed at which we can load those assets into said memory has not increased at the same rate.

For instance, the original Crash Bandicoot ran at 320x240, while the new updated version runs at 2560x1440. The original version ran at TWO percent of the number of pixels. And that's JUST resolution, not considering at all the updated textures, etc to make the game actually look GOOD at 1440p.

The original actually ran at 512 x 240. They actually used simple shading, and no textures in a lot of places for performance reasons.

Also, like most folks with that mentality, if you invalidate his opinion with facts, he will completely ignore your post. If you present him with enough facts to change his mind, he will not acknowledge it until called out on it way down the road.

Blackt1g3r did, and his post about multithreading really does illustrate how 60 fps may not necessarily be twice as responsive. I suppose gains are on a case by case basis. But, with everything else stacked against responsiveness, any effort to mitigate that for an action oriented game is welcome.

And by the way, when VV showed off the game initially, it WAS running at 60fps. Source.

Most modern games are multithreaded, so it really depends on how the game decided to split up threads. Generally, the main thread is responsible for rendering, while another thread is responsible for physics calculations. So 60 FPS in a multithreaded game usually has nothing to do with the physics simulation and input handling. See this Gameastura article of a brief overview. Even in a non multi-threaded design, the main game loop will schedule the rendering pass based on how long it takes to handle everything else so the input handling tends to be somewhat decoupled from the display.

I wonder if this is why all other things being as equal as they can be, modern games on the whole feel less crisp and responsive. Uberfoop even mentioned how old systems woudn't even save the rendered frame in RAM (there wasn't enough!), and would just stream the video data on a line by line basis as the TV was drawing (some games took advantage of this for trickery like transparency and other effects).

It seems the deck is stacked against response time pretty heavily now.

I know all that, but my Cody filter gets worn down after time, you know? It's one thing to present a strong argument, and quite another to be willfully ignorant to make your point. It's tiresome sometimes.

He's structured it as a commentary on the industry at large, but it's just this game.

Cody Review: fine, I'm obviously playing it a lot, but the input lag is enough to make this game more frustrating than it was originally. I think 60FPS would have alleviated this. I also find the load times frustrating.

Cody does something that some journalists do, or at least some writers. They make a mountain out of a molehill, but not so obviously. They eliminate the phrase "I think" from their writing, as it's perceived as weakening an argument they put forward, and they present their argument as fact, then support it. They always do put forward an argument, by the way. In gaming, you may have an Assassin's Creed game review veer off to the cookie cutter open world win districts format, and talk about why that is objectively bad game design. They, of course, would acknowledge that it isn't objectively bad if pressed, but they know that any hedging weakens their argument. They miss the point though, and forget to review the actual game. They want to make their argument.

Cody, game review deadline absent, is free to make these arguments, and he makes them strongly, with basic and effective writing tactics. Most of us perceive this forum as a place to just chat with friends. Cody does too, but also seems to secondarily treat the forum as an exercise in attempting to convince people that he's correct about things and others are wrong, as opposed to just sharing ideas.

Once you read the posts through these glasses, Cheapley, it's NBD. He's sharing that he is playing this game, but it has technical problems he doesn't like. He then takes the opportunity to assert an argument of objective truth of games, which is just his opinion, written like an op-ed. Not dissimilar to anything else anybody else here does. You just have to read through Cody filter of probably not as confident as he sounds, much like people should read things I say through the Funkmon filter of probably not being serious.

I still think DBO needs a kind of gizoogle-like filter options, customized for each forum member XD

Most of us are used to Cody being this way, though (especially when we play with him, and the one time that I hung out with him for a few days). So we mentally stick the "in my likely-wrong opinion" in front of his posts for him, and when you get past all that, he's a pretty fun guy...
Although he does treat the forum a bit like his personal social media wall. But hey, as long as it gets discussions going...

Cody Review: fine, I'm obviously playing it a lot, but the input lag is enough to make this game more frustrating than it was originally. I think 60FPS would have alleviated this. I also find the load times frustrating.

Cody does something that some journalists do, or at least some writers. They make a mountain out of a molehill, but not so obviously. They eliminate the phrase "I think" from their writing, as it's perceived as weakening an argument they put forward, and they present their argument as fact, then support it. They always do put forward an argument, by the way. In gaming, you may have an Assassin's Creed game review veer off to the cookie cutter open world win districts format, and talk about why that is objectively bad game design. They, of course, would acknowledge that it isn't objectively bad if pressed, but they know that any hedging weakens their argument. They miss the point though, and forget to review the actual game. They want to make their argument.

Cody, game review deadline absent, is free to make these arguments, and he makes them strongly, with basic and effective writing tactics. Most of us perceive this forum as a place to just chat with friends. Cody does too, but also seems to secondarily treat the forum as an exercise in attempting to convince people that he's correct about things and others are wrong, as opposed to just sharing ideas.

Once you read the posts through these glasses, Cheapley, it's NBD. He's sharing that he is playing this game, but it has technical problems he doesn't like. He then takes the opportunity to assert an argument of objective truth of games, which is just his opinion, written like an op-ed. Not dissimilar to anything else anybody else here does. You just have to read through Cody filter of probably not as confident as he sounds, much like people should read things I say through the Funkmon filter of probably not being serious.

Plus, I'm just downright pedantic sometimes.

But that is the only part I disagree with you on (and note that I'm still replying to stuff all over this thread, not just you even though you happen to be the last post each time I reply). 60fps is display tech. It does not mean controls are more responsive. The most you can say is that IF it has more responsive controls, you will be able to see it and or take advantage of it because of 60fps. But, if it samples the controller at 30hertz, or if the wireless controller packages data into bursts, or the input processing is not given enough priority, or if a bunch of other things happen the controls will not be better just because of 60fps.

You can call it semantics, but these are not two words for the same thing. These are different things, (a whole lot of different things) and if we are going to make demands of developers or set minimum floors it would probably make sense to have enough precision that you get the benefit you are after.

For me, for a platforming game, I would much rather have it spend bandwidth over sampling the input than displaying a higher frame rate, if I have to choose one. It's about timing, not waiting until my eye sees and processes the exact right frame.

My understanding was (and it wouldn't shock me at all to learn there are exceptions) that most game engines tie frame rate to input response (along with many other game-state calculations). So the typical scenario for any game to run at 60fps is where the game is pulling controller input data 60 times per second as well.

Especially given the fact that most gamers can't even *see* the difference between 30 and 60, the primary reason developers site when prioritizing 60fps is to allow for more responsive controls.

Why does the old version start twice as fast as the new version?

Not every hardware component has advanced at the same rate over the last twenty years. We have exponentially more memory for storing things like textures, models, and sound files, but the speed at which we can load those assets into said memory has not increased at the same rate.

For instance, the original Crash Bandicoot ran at 320x240, while the new updated version runs at 2560x1440. The original version ran at TWO percent of the number of pixels. And that's JUST resolution, not considering at all the updated textures, etc to make the game actually look GOOD at 1440p.

You can call it semantics, but these are not two words for the same thing. These are different things, (a whole lot of different things) and if we are going to make demands of developers or set minimum floors it would probably make sense to have enough precision that you get the benefit you are after.

For me, for a platforming game, I would much rather have it spend bandwidth over sampling the input than displaying a higher frame rate, if I have to choose one. It's about timing, not waiting until my eye sees and processes the exact right frame.

But as we've said before, you then get into the discussion of priorities, and where precision ranks on each player's personal ladder.

Not only that, but also where fast paced, twitchy, “the enemy can slingshot around a building and shotgun you before you know what’s happening” gameplay ranks on each player’s personal ladder. I’ve spent a decade and a half avoiding games like that! Even though I know it shouldn’t, all this talk about the superiority of 60fps does get a little mixed with my dislike or complete non-interest in the games being used as the shinning examples of the advantages of higher frame rate.

I guess it just feels a little funny that this whole discussion is revolving around Crash Bandicoot and Titanfall, and I gotta ask: Are there any good games that run at 60fps? ;)

Hah, well I would ask in return "do you dislike those games because their controls are more responsive?" ;p

But to your point, the games where 60fps is more important are games that tend to be extremely fast paced, and if those games aren't your thing than you're obviously less likely to care about it so much.

But the point I was trying to make earlier was more academic than that. I'm basically just saying that games that run at 60fps have faster, more responsive controls than games that don't. Rather than people arguing that it does or doesn't matter, I think we could all agree that it makes a difference, and it's up to each individual whether or not they care about that difference.

Because the new one doesn't look like smashed dogshit?

Cody this a stupid point to try and be making and you know it.

At the end of the day you are still waiting through long load times.

Destiny's loading may be long, but it is upfront, and when at your destination you can spend hours (raids especially) without seeing another loading screen. I suppose Destiny can do this because it's pretty linear, and can cache and preload as you go through the spaces.

Crash is not. Especially if you are going for gems, you'll be backtracking, and entering levels out of order. There are gems in the remaster that you can only get without dying. So die, and you must suffer two long load screens before being able to restart, because for whatever reason there's no option to simply restart level.

Knowing this, if I were in charge, I would have made it a priority to reduce load times since they impact the player more than other types of games. Saying it's prettier doesn't address this.