Borderlands 2; screentearing in abundance and performance issues...

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#101 Posted by darkspineslayer (20125 posts) -
Um...What? Funny, havn't run into any screen tearing or framerate drops period. I think its the PS3 version too...playing it on a big black box, with a dualshock... :?
#102 Posted by finalstar2007 (25439 posts) -

[QUOTE="finalstar2007"]

.

TheGuardian03

http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_lzym3gCBo41r5zfj8o1_400.gif.

tumblr_lz1o2f2Qnn1r21rs4o1_500.gif.

#103 Posted by Wiiyou (677 posts) -

[QUOTE="Wiiyou"]

To bad this not come to WiiU, 1080p/60 fps :cry:

parkurtommo

1080p and 60fps? Keep dreaming bro. Even at console settings that wouldn't be possible. And the PC version maxed out with physx also maxed, requires a good dual gpu rig to have an acceptable framerate. LMAO

Consoles maybe not even have physX?

So you mean a cartoon-shooter require more than Call of duty?

#104 Posted by Obviously_Right (5104 posts) -

Sad to see Gearbox are as lazy a dev as Bugthesda.

#105 Posted by Zensword (3885 posts) -
Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.BPoole96
PS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing.
#106 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -
Anyone having trouble joining peoples games on PC?
#107 Posted by Fizzman (9883 posts) -

Once again the PS3 proves it's the definitive system for crappy ports.

#108 Posted by The_Game21x (26342 posts) -

Oh look, it's the "lazy dev" excuse, right on schedule!

#109 Posted by da_illest101 (7602 posts) -

sad to see dev being lazy more and more, thank god I don't care about that game

#110 Posted by percuvius2 (1982 posts) -

I havent noticed any screen tearing yet in Boarderlands 2, I still need to save Roland so it will probably show up once I get into bigger fights, even then don't care game is awesome.

Also Hermits are pretty funny, cause they act like no games have performance issues on PC's is sooo cute ;)

Ballroompirate

They don't have performance issues if you know how to build a PC

#111 Posted by Obviously_Right (5104 posts) -

sad to see dev being lazy more and more, thank god I don't care about that game

da_illest101

ikr? They're getting too complacent.

#112 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

PC confirmed for best game.

Scaled down, original res is here.

#113 Posted by jackfruitchips (1066 posts) -
It's Gearbox to blame. It's 2012 not 2006, so no excuse here.
#114 Posted by Rockman999 (7232 posts) -
:lol: Ya Gearbox is to blame even though the other versions function much better. I'm not exaggerating when I say the PS3 even suffers from screen tearing while using the browser.
#115 Posted by jackfruitchips (1066 posts) -

Oh look, it's the "lazy dev" excuse, right on schedule!

The_Game21x
Oh look, it's the " PS3 is hard to devlop for" excuse. Just look at Saints Row the Third, it's open world and PS3 version wins. And Just Cause 2 on PS3 was on par with 360 (both has advantages and disadvantages.). Clearly Gearbox is at fault here.
#116 Posted by jackfruitchips (1066 posts) -
:lol: Ya Gearbox is to blame even though the other versions function much better. I'm not exaggerating when I say the PS3 even suffers from screen tearing while using the browser. Rockman999
Read my post above.
#117 Posted by Grawse (4342 posts) -
[QUOTE="BPoole96"]Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.Zensword
PS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing.

So one example of a mutilpat that's better. Plus I thought cows don't like lems of truth?
#118 Posted by percuvius2 (1982 posts) -

[QUOTE="Rockman999"]:lol: Ya Gearbox is to blame even though the other versions function much better. I'm not exaggerating when I say the PS3 even suffers from screen tearing while using the browser. jackfruitchips
Read my post above.

Only displayed your wrongful opinion.

#119 Posted by heretrix (37479 posts) -

PC confirmed for best game.

Scaled down, original res is here.

clyde46

Thanks. That's my new laptop wallpaper.That is until I start taking screenies myself. The game is gorgeous in some spots.

#120 Posted by BPoole96 (22803 posts) -
[QUOTE="BPoole96"]Not surprising. Borderlands 1 on PS3 had several performance issues since it was an open world game and PS3 can't handle those. Makes sense that BL2 shares similar problems.Zensword
PS3 can't handle open world games ? I remembered you said "The Infamous games are open world and run perfectly fine" in this thread: http://www.gamespot.com/forums/topic/29282851/why-are-non-scripted-open-world-games-not-possible-on-the-ps3-or-have-issues?page=1 Saint Row The Third on PS3 was better than 360 according to Lens of Truth: Conclusion: When you look at the overall package as a whole, the PS3 version is the one to buy without a doubt. Both versions sport quick load times with very small visual advantages and disadvantages, but the performance aspect of the game was just one sided. If you go with the PS3, you have perfect performance all around. If you opt for the 360 version however, you will have to make a choice of whether you want massive screen tearing or noticeable frame rate hits. With that in mind, it is foolish to have to choose one when another version can give you the whole package. Just Cause 2 on PS3 and 360 tie. The 360 looks better, has better performance but PS3 doesn't have screen tearing.

Obviously a game built from the ground up specifically for PS3 can run okay. Any other open world game is either barely equal (such as cutscenes in Just Cause 2 having bad frame rates.) or worse on PS3. If you like open world games and aren't into PC gaming, the 360 is your best bet.
#121 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

Oh yea!

Direct full res here

#122 Posted by The_Game21x (26342 posts) -

[QUOTE="The_Game21x"]

Oh look, it's the "lazy dev" excuse, right on schedule!

jackfruitchips

Oh look, it's the " PS3 is hard to devlop for" excuse. Just look at Saints Row the Third, it's open world and PS3 version wins. And Just Cause 2 on PS3 was on par with 360 (both has advantages and disadvantages.). Clearly Gearbox is at fault here.

That faulty line of thinking implies that all open world games are the same, which they aren't.

#123 Posted by ReadingRainbow4 (14737 posts) -

the funniest thing about this thread is that borderlands 2 isn't even an open world game.

It's segmented mission areas, with hubs in between.

#124 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

PC runs beautifully, even with high physx and i dont even have a dedicated physx gpu

#125 Posted by Blazerdt47 (5669 posts) -
So it looks better on PS3 but performs worst than X360.
#126 Posted by Floppy_Jim (25829 posts) -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-39aRD5DtQ

"The PS3 version is amazing. All the networking is native to the PSN. It feels like a first party game. We have alot of PS3 fanboys in the studio that made the experience nice and really high quality."

I don't see the point of BSing like this when digital foundary and whatnot will disprove him but w/e, butthurt lolz have been provided which is all that ultimately matters to me.

#127 Posted by Headpopper333 (924 posts) -

Big surprise here, another garbage unreal engine game, chock full of screen tearing and framerate issues. This is kinda like every other unreal engine game. Glad I didn't buy this poorly coded crap. Too bad because the game itself is fun, the performance on the other hand is amateurish all the way through. I can't stand to play a beautifully v synced console game and then play a game that has screen tearing. It all comes down to lazy devs and a crappy engine powering the game and I won't reward that kind of incompetence.

#128 Posted by way2funny (4570 posts) -

Big surprise here, another garbage unreal engine game, chock full of screen tearing and framerate issues. This is kinda like every other unreal engine game. Glad I didn't buy this poorly coded crap. Too bad because the game itself is fun, the performance on the other hand is amateurish all the way through. I can't stand to play a beautifully v synced console game and then play a game that has screen tearing. It all comes down to lazy devs and a crappy engine powering the game and I won't reward that kind of incompetence.

Headpopper333

Im getting 0 screen tearing, so sucks for you

#129 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43155 posts) -
So it looks better on PS3 but performs worst than X360. Blazerdt47
No, they both have pros and cons when it comes to visuals--but the 360 and PC versions undoubtedly are superior when it comes to performance and screentearing.
#130 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.

#131 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43155 posts) -

The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.

Master_ShakeXXX
Shake thinks he's above the experts at DF. rofl. Cute.
#132 Posted by Master_ShakeXXX (13361 posts) -

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

The PS3 version runs perfectly fine as long as you're not playing in splitscreen mode. Plus it looks noticeably clearer than the 360 version. Sorry, but the 360 isn't taking this one.

Stevo_the_gamer

Shake thinks he's above the experts at DF. rofl. Cute.

Experts, lol.

#133 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

Gearbox knows what the best platform is.

Full res here.

#134 Posted by finalstar2007 (25439 posts) -

Borderlands 2 is is amazing! i hope everyone will buy it

#135 Posted by heretrix (37479 posts) -

Gearbox knows what the best platform is.

Full res here.

clyde46

lookit dat wide FOV...hmmm yeah.. PC. I really like this game.

#136 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

[QUOTE="clyde46"]

Gearbox knows what the best platform is.

Full res here.

heretrix

lookit dat wide FOV...hmmm yeah.. PC. I really like this game.

I just left it on the standard option. Plays just fine for me.
#137 Posted by TopTierHustler (3961 posts) -

This thread once again shows that cows are the worst group of fanboys.

Let's be honest, many or most of them are narcissistic, and when the system they basically fap to isn't the best platform for something, them blame the dev.

They just think they're the best, and if somebody else appears to be the best, then they still claim to be supirior.

#138 Posted by timmy00 (15360 posts) -

hmm I haven't noticed any screentearing (though I don't really notice that stuff) but I've notice some fps drops. Still nothing unplayable or really worth claiming ownage on.

#139 Posted by mrmusicman247 (17577 posts) -

[QUOTE="lundy86_4"]inb4 "Digital Foundry is a site made for fanboys. There is no difference!"Miroku32

But teh cell 120fps and 4d?adamosmaki

INB4 Gearbox is a lazy dev even though they've crafted an amazing game just like Bethesda did.Frostbite24

holy f*cking sh*t

discuss the damn topic. not the fanboys

#140 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6255 posts) -

360 version looks a little cleaner to me, noticed some pop-in on the PS3 version.

PC version probably looks the crispest, but invariably will have problems on some systems, as well as weaker matchmaking and community for co-op.

#141 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43155 posts) -

Experts, lol.

Master_ShakeXXX

Yep, experts. Professionals. You know, folks that do professional video/programming for a living? Unlike you, which... um... just plays games. Have you ever created a texture before, how about a mesh? Every dabbled in Blender? What about script making? Little forum peon thinks he knows things. Ha! Now that's some funnies.

Edit: Ironically, the only poster at Gamespot that can talk tech sh*t and get away with is Teuf.

#142 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6255 posts) -

[QUOTE="Master_ShakeXXX"]

Experts, lol.

Stevo_the_gamer

Yep, experts. Professionals. You know, folks that do professional video/programming for a living? Unlike you, which... um... just plays games. Have you ever created a texture before, how about a mesh? Every dabbled in Blender? What about script making? Little forum peon thinks he knows things. Ha! Now that's some funnies.

Edit: Ironically, the only poster at Gamespot that can talk tech sh*t and get away with is Teuf.

We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.

And %99 of us have eyes.

Get off your high horse, thx.

#143 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

360 version looks a little cleaner to me, noticed some pop-in on the PS3 version.

PC version probably looks the crispest, but invariably will have problems on some systems, as well as weaker matchmaking and community for co-op.

ZombieKiller7
Weaker? The dam thing doesn't even work. Every other game I own works in multiplayer with my router, be it on 360 or on my PC yet BL2 refuses to connect to friends games.
#144 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43155 posts) -

We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.

And %99 of us have eyes.

Get off your high horse, thx.

ZombieKiller7
There's some web developer programmers here, especially some of the IT staff here at GS that post sometimes. But tech savvy game developers, or actual modders? Please point them out to me, because I see none outside of Teuf here in SW. "having eyes." Ha. Yeah, most of the people here will try to assert x game looks better than y game, but can't do sh*t to go out and prove it because they know nothing about visual fidelity in games.
#145 Posted by whiskeystrike (12068 posts) -

It's funny how console gamers don't notice these things. I was just watching my suitemate play some Borderlands 2 on the PS3 and the game looked like it kept dropping to 15fps to 20fps. The weirdest thing is though was that he wasn't noticing the slowdowns. I even asked him if it felt like the game was playing a bit slower and he said no.

I think each side of these "consolites" versus the "pc elitists" is mass confusion about what they are seeing and what they think the other is seeing. The "elitists" are seeing a game that performs and looks far under their expectations, that is they are used to the better resolutions. framerates and textures so to see console gamers not recognize the same issues as them is a bit absurd. Console gamers just see a fun game to play. They aren't thinking about the other performance issues and as far as they are aware they paid 200 or 300 dollars to play amazing and fun games. Both sides assume the other side sees the same thing as them so it perplexes both types of gamers as to why the other one cares so much.

#146 Posted by clyde46 (46997 posts) -

It's funny how console gamers don't notice these things. I was just watching my suitemate play some Borderlands 2 on the PS3 and the game looked like it kept dropping to 15fps to 20fps. The weirdest thing is though was that he wasn't noticing the slowdowns. I even asked him if it felt like the game was playing a bit slower and he said no.

I think each side of these "consolites" versus the "pc elitists" is mass confusion about what they are seeing and what they think the other is seeing. The "elitists" are seeing a game that performs and looks far under their expectations, that is they are used to the better resolutions. framerates and textures so to see console gamers not recognize the same issues as them is a bit absurd. Console gamers just see a fun game to play. They aren't thinking about the other performance issues and as far as they are aware they paid 200 or 300 dollars to play amazing and fun games. Both sides assume the other side sees the same thing as them so it perplexes both types of gamers as to why the other one cares so much.

whiskeystrike
Ding, ding, ding. We have a winner!
#147 Posted by ZombieKiller7 (6255 posts) -

[QUOTE="ZombieKiller7"]

We have alot of tech saavy ppl on this forum including IT professionals and technologists.

And %99 of us have eyes.

Get off your high horse, thx.

Stevo_the_gamer

There's some web developer programmers here, especially some of the IT staff here at GS that post sometimes. But tech savvy game developers, or actual modders? Please point them out to me, because I see none outside of Teuf here in SW. "having eyes." Ha. Yeah, most of the people here will try to assert x game looks better than y game, but can't do sh*t to go out and prove it because they know nothing about visual fidelity in games.

Quantifying and qualifying moving art is a pretty tough proposition in the best case scenario, I'm not sure it's possible to "prove" anything.

If Dr Rottencrotch proclaims that steak A tastes the best, that could be true for him and a good guideline for people who want steak, but if I happen to eat Steak B and think it's better then I have a valid opinion, and bashing ppl over the head for not agreeing with the "experts" is poor form and not helpful.

Game sites exist by gamers for gamers.

We play the games, we rate the games, we make the mods, we write the reviews, and sometimes we even start our own gaming sites or become game developers.

In my experience all the "regulars" on this forum are tech-saavy individuals and dedicated gamers who put alot of time and energy into this hobby of ours, and I don't think their thoughts should be discounted so easily over the "experts."

My 2 cents.

#149 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (43155 posts) -

all the "regulars" on this forum are tech-saavy individuals and dedicated gamers who put alot of time and energy into this hobby of ours, and I don't think their thoughts should be discounted so easily over the "experts."

ZombieKiller7

:lol: Honestly, I don't even know where to begin.