Will I lag more on SRIV or SR2

[76561198150010646]

I know SR2 is a bigger game and I lag on SRIV so do u think I will lag even more on SR2 or no?

[Panic! At The Dis-Chem]

You will lag more on SR2 as it is a horrible PC port

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baconator:

You will lag more on SR2 as it is a horrible PC port

And the thing is, that port isn't even really the original dev's fault. It was outourced by the publisher to a company that apparently had no clue what they were doing.

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por Baconator:

You will lag more on SR2 as it is a horrible PC port

How would you lag more on a "bad" port of a game from a number of years ago, when compared with a much newer, much more graphically demanding game?

Seeing as I've run it perfectly well on a fairly aggressively average computer from 5+ years ago, you'd really have to be playing on a toaster for noticeable SR2 lag.

If you want a really horrible PC port, check out Dead Rising 3.

You can lag more due to horrid optimization and issues with scripting. That's like asking why you lag more in dwarf fortress than in minecraft.

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por DarthNachoz:

And the thing is, that port isn't even really the original dev's fault. It was outourced by the publisher to a company that apparently had no clue what they were doing.


You can lag more due to horrid optimization and issues with scripting. That's like asking why you lag more in dwarf fortress than in minecraft.

Yeah, I don't play either of those.
My point was that if you can RUN SR4, even if it dips FPS a bit, you're very likely not using a toaster, and so, SR2 will run perfectly fine.


I find it hard to believe that scripting could even be an issue, but I suppose if your CPU isn't that great, and it's a DX9 game with a badly thought out rendering system making too many draw calls, it could be, I suppose.
To be honest, I've not seen any issues when I've played the game, so I'm not even sure why it's supposed to be such an awful port.

Just because you haven't seen issues, doesn't mean they arent there. Many people still have issues with the game due to the fact that it by default is trying to emulate the 360's hardware. This results in a lot of extra calls and minor errors that quickly stack up. Add to that how the engine streams it's graphics and you have a recipie for disaster. Are you sure you don't get any framedrops? Most people tend to get pretty severe ones while driving at speed in SR2.

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por DarthNachoz:

Just because you haven't seen issues, doesn't mean they arent there. Many people still have issues with the game due to the fact that it by default is trying to emulate the 360's hardware. This results in a lot of extra calls and minor errors that quickly stack up. Add to that how the engine streams it's graphics and you have a recipie for disaster. Are you sure you don't get any framedrops? Most people tend to get pretty severe ones while driving at speed in SR2.

Lol, emulated.

Okay.
Because that's totally what ports are, and a game using that method would totally have been playable on the system spec recommended.

The engine, by default limits itself to the restrictions the 360 had via restrictions in the code. This results in odd occurences when your system specs aren't close to what the engine expects. I'm more specifically reffering to the core clock speed issue that is present on xp and vista, although it can rear it's head on 7 and 8 as well. Try looking it up before making fun of others. And FYI, saints row 2 IS practically unplayable on the minimum specs that the steam page lists. Add on that the lighting engine is horribly inefficient and you get a lot of issues with performance that shouldn't be occuring.

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por DarthNachoz:

The engine, by default limits itself to the restrictions the 360 had via restrictions in the code. This results in odd occurences when your system specs aren't close to what the engine expects. I'm more specifically reffering to the core clock speed issue that is present on xp and vista, although it can rear it's head on 7 and 8 as well. Try looking it up before making fun of others. And FYI, saints row 2 IS practically unplayable on the minimum specs that the steam page lists. Add on that the lighting engine is horribly inefficient and you get a lot of issues with performance that shouldn't be occuring.

I'm amused because no-one in their right mind would have emulated the hardware of a 360.
Min spec? I said recommended.

The sheer effort involved in getting it as playable as it is would be staggering, far more so than just porting the engine source code badly.
Hell, even writing an entirely new engine based on nothing but your gameplay would take less time/effort.


But hey, that's just my opinion, as someone with experience writing game engines, which is hardly validated by the fact that 360 emulation has only just this year reached the heady level of being able to play Frogger 2 (after four years of work)[en.wikipedia.org], combined with the fact that you can't throw a rock without hitting a game engine these days.

Only four months to emulate their game?[en.wikipedia.org] Much impress.

So yes, I concur, this is clearly emulated.

Are you really so arrogant that you can't use this wonderful thing called context? The port is a straight port from console, with no effort given toward UI, optomization, or even the fact that computers arent a standardized device like the 360 is. Thus a number of people had issues due to the game being built to work specifically with the 360's resources and architecture.
The code was given little to no tweaking to adapt for pc, which means that it does emulate the 360 in a limited way. Namely by the game acting as if it was being played on a 360. I don't know how to put it any clearer, and I would appreciate it if you would drop the holier-than-thou sarcastic smartass act.

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por DarthNachoz:

Are you really so arrogant that you can't use this wonderful thing called context? The port is a straight port from console, with no effort given toward UI, optomization, or even the fact that computers arent a standardized device like the 360 is. Thus a number of people had issues due to the game being built to work specifically with the 360's resources and architecture.
The code was given little to no tweaking to adapt for pc, which means that it does emulate the 360 in a limited way. Namely by the game acting as if it was being played on a 360. I don't know how to put it any clearer, and I would appreciate it if you would drop the holier-than-thou sarcastic smartass act.

You specifically said "emulate the 360's hardware".

I specifically stated that this is beyond unlikely.


I really don't see how this can be clearer.

To emulate, as defined by Miriam-Webster, means to imitate. The software piece known as saints row 2, was coded in such a way that it imitated the restrictions of the 360's hardware. Namely, as I clarified in another post, the clock speed of the 360, and the fact that it actually runs better on quad-core machines if you use a software like radeonpro to tell it to ignore your fourth core.
Now, are we through here, or are you gonna keep up with your false ignorance? Even if my wording wasn't precise in my initial post, if you have any experience working with game engines, especially the code therein, you would have known the general gist of what I meant. Unless, of course, you are lying about your supposed experience? Or maybe you were looking for a fight, I dunno.

[JtDarth]

Escrito originalmente por Baron von Whimsy:

Escrito originalmente por DarthNachoz:

To emulate, as defined by Miriam-Webster, means to imitate. The software piece known as saints row 2, was coded in such a way that it imitated the restrictions of the 360's hardware. Namely, as I clarified in another post, the clock speed of the 360, and the fact that it actually runs better on quad-core machines if you use a software like radeonpro to tell it to ignore your fourth core.
Now, are we through here, or are you gonna keep up with your false ignorance? Even if my wording wasn't precise in my initial post, if you have any experience working with game engines, especially the code therein, you would have known the general gist of what I meant. Unless, of course, you are lying about your supposed experience? Or maybe you were looking for a fight, I dunno.

That's not emulating the hardware, that's simply optimised for a four core system, where the 4th core is busy.

That's not even emulating by the dictionary definition, let alone the gaming/computer definition, since it's not imitating the specific hardware involved, but merely working to the same rules.


You even refute your own statement as you attempt to validate it, if you re-read the bolded statement, so, yes, we are definitely done.

And now you are picking apart my posts and only responding to things that make your position stronger? that's fine, it only means you know I'm right. You aren't even doing it right anyway. Where in the bolded text do I contradict myself? I'm through with your bs. You knew what I meant and are quite clearly arguing for the sake of having the last word. Enjoy your empty 'victory' if you want.

At this point, I would reccomend any moderator that see this lock it. The only responses in a few days have been regurgitation of the same info, and this conversation turned thread derailing argument over semantics.