Many complained about the loading times in Bloodborne, and today's 1.03 patch included an improvement officially quantified between 5 and 15 seconds. DualShockers actually decided to put them to the test, and you can see the results here.
would have been good if they had actually recorded the original loading times to compare to ... oh well.
Count to 30 in your head... Done!! You're comparing time, not graphics, so why would you need a video?
30? They were up to 45-50 seconds sometimes. I'm just glad 1st floor lecture hall has always been short. I do wonder why this wasn't part of launch. Very odd.
Did I say they needed a video? I just think it would have been cool to see the actual old times vs the new times.
after dying, loading takes 5 seconds (tested in many areas, same result)
@joab - I never had load times that long.
Most people are done playing this game anyway.
@Mikeslemonade What new games are you currently playing on your xbone? Go ahead i'll wait...
Could just delete the patches and find out. If you've got the disc version and are curious.
It's different everywhere, different times for different areas. I love the new item info screens, it makes it seem even faster.
considering u can pretty much go all way through game with no load screens i dont think the load screens are that bad and it didnt annoy me when i was playing it.
Damn, I wish I was that good.
Same here man. Not once did I get annoyed by the loading times. People need some patience, not like it's GTA load times >.>
The original times should be common knowledge at this point considering the fuss that was made about it at launch.
Does anyone know if this downgraded texture quality? Load times are long because it is loading data. Smaller data like lower resolution textures will load faster. I also wish they would give an option to shut off that annoying image ruining chromatic aberration. I makes most of the screen a blurry color fringy mess.
Played 8 hours today and can say there was no downgrade.
There are many ways to optimize loading without sacrificing texture quality. Depends on the way the game loads texture, audio etc. They might have improved the way the game streams it, after the stuff within view distance is loaded, etc.
The textures seem the same to me.
Did it fix the frame-pacing issue ?
It seems smoother. I don't think it's entirely fixed though.
Frame pacing issue still present according to Eurogamers test results http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
According to Digital Foundry, unfortunately not. http://www.eurogamer.net/ar... The problem sounds fixable though, so hopefully 1.04
I don't notice it. Although I respect DF's analyses and enjoy learning about the technical aspects, I think it turns otherwise happy gamers into silly nitpickers. "Frame pacing" which I wouldn't know existed had it not been for research, hasn't affected my game play, or enjoyment of the game one bit.
The only people unaware of these issues are people that should not be commenting on these articles. You are unware, hence ignorant of serious issues that affect many people not used to such mediocre aspects of graphics engines. It's not okay to release a game with serious judder issues and 40 second load times. Your idea that we should all just remain ignorant.... where do I even begin. NO.
There's lots of GOTY talk around Bloodborne, clearly the frame-pacing and load-time issues aren't enough to spoil that. Many people focus too much on gaming-by-numbers and seem to forget that games are supposed to be fun first and foremost.
@theDBD no, I'm not going by numbers at all. I noticed unpleasant judder when panning the camera, and my first thought was that the frame rate needed to be higher. I wasn't trying to put a number on it. Digital foundry was useful for an explanation of why I was seeing the judder, and encouraging because there is a strong chance it will be fixed in a patch. The fact that some people don't see or don't mind the judder is great for them I suppose, but neither here nor there when people ask if it has been fixed.
Totally agree TheDBD Technical aspects are one thing. Real world scenerio is another. What frame pacing issues? Its been smooth for me. I have not had any judder issues, except possibly one time where I noticed it.
Ok, I thought that frame pacing was just another name for frame rate, but it seems it's not. What the hell is frame pacing?
The game delivers 30frames per second, but it delivers some of them in the wrong order and for irregular amounts of time so it looks stuttery. To the eyes it's basically the same as a low frame rate, but it's a bug rather than an insurmountable performance issue.
This article explains it well http://www.eurogamer.net/ar...
I think I understand. The article mentioned that if the game can't process a frame in 16ms that the next frame could be processed at 33ms making it look like one frame was slower than the other but only because the game was tied to the refresh rate of the display. So even though the frame is at, say 30FPS, the refresh makes it look like it's not. I wonder is that the kind of blinking effect I've seen in Bloodborne? I haven't noticed much of what looks like a framerate drop, but I have noticed every now and then that my screen will flash kind of like what it looks like when you blink your eyes.
Was never enough of an issue to be any sort of problem here.