Mafia 3 hit by review mob in response to capped frame rate

If you're a game developer creating a game for multiple platforms—PC, PlayStation 4, and Xbox One, usually—the last thing you want to do is give your PC gaming audience the notion that the game they're buying has been compromised to fit the needs of consoles. That's unfortunately just what developer Hangar 13 did with Mafia III. While the game isn't in the hands of players in many regions just yet, reviewers have started working with their copies. PC Gamer noticed pretty quickly that the 2K-published game is limited to a scant 30 FPS  even on hardware that's worthy of much higher frame rates.

Regardless of whether the capped framerate was an oversight or a directorial decision, it sends the message to PC gamers that they were an afterthought. The outcry that resulted from the news was immediate and loud, and the game's Steam rating is already wearing concrete shoes as a result, with a 'Mixed' rating and 68% negative reviews. While some reviews are from American gamers who haven't played yet, others are from gamers in regions where Mafia III has already unlocked and who were able to confirm PC Gamer's findings. Players also found other issues like blurry textures, inexplicable changes to text size, and an inability to change visual settings in-game, so it seems the capped frame rate is just one issue among many.

Hangar 13 has already released a statement on the matter, chalking the decision up to "ensuring that Mafia III's performance is consistent across all platforms." The developer is working on an update for people playing on PC, but doesn't yet have any details about when the patch will be coming or what aspects of the game it might affect. The statement also solicits the PC gaming community for opinions about which performance adjustment options are most important, as the team is "actively considering a number of additional post-launch improvements on PC that would give players more control over how they can tailor the game's experience to suit their rig's performance."

Mafia III has been intended as a PC release since its announcement, so Hangar 13 doesn't really have an excuse for the oversight. The language in the statement suggests the developer didn't spend much time testing their game on PC, nor did they take even a moment to look into what PC gamers expect. It's possible the team made the decision to patch PC-specific options in after release to hit the October 7 release date. If that's the case, a release delay for the PC version may have been better-received. If you're thinking of picking up the game in , you might want to wait until those patches are in place.

Comments closed
    • coolflame57
    • 3 years ago

    Hangar 13 has already released a statement on the matter, chalking the decision up to “ensuring that Mafia III’s performance is consistent across all platforms.”

    How about instead making the game consistently GOOD instead of consistently BAD?

    • 1sh
    • 3 years ago

    This article needs an update, they released a patch for the PC that allows 60fps cap and unlimited fps options…. although I heard the game sucks anyway lol.
    [url<]http://www.pcgamer.com/mafia-3s-60-fps-patch-available-to-download-now/[/url<]

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      I loved the first game too, but each one they make just seems to get worse and worse.

        • Voldenuit
        • 3 years ago

        Doesn’t help that I, II, and III were all made by mostly different teams.

    • mkk
    • 3 years ago

    I might buy it tonight, since I was going to put some funds into my steam wallet anyway…

    • DarkUltra
    • 3 years ago

    Hey hey hey guys!

    “We currently have a patch running here at the studio that includes 30, 60, and unlimited frames-per-second options in the video menu, among other improvements for the PC version of Mafia III. We’re verifying the patch now to ensure everything is working as expected. If everything goes well, we expect the update to go live this weekend. We will be keeping the PC community up-to-date on the status of the patch throughout the weekend and thank you for all the feedback!”

    [url<]http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2016/10/mafia-3-pc-port-capped-at-30fps-at-release/[/url<]

    • NeelyCam
    • 3 years ago

    Lol @ the self-proclaimed master race. Get over it and buy a console.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      Why would I spend yet additional money on something inferior?

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      I know you are just trolling anyway but I’ll bite.

      The console version runs at 30FPS too…

        • NeelyCam
        • 3 years ago

        Yes. But at least you’re used to such frame rates and won’t be disappointed.

      • LostCat
      • 3 years ago

      Did for exclusives, they mostly ended up coming to PC anyway. Least Destiny is awesome.

        • Pwnstar
        • 3 years ago

        Destiny is coming to PC, too. lmao

    • brucethemoose
    • 3 years ago

    Some engines are coded in such a way (for example, physics being tied to the framerate) that they’re hard locked at 30 FPS.

    That’s fine, relatively speaking. Bad coding, but at least there’s a reason.

    However, of there’s a 30 FPS lock and it gets patched out relatively quickly, that just means the PC release was a minor afterthought. That’s something to get upset about.

    • GrimDanfango
    • 3 years ago

    The true translation of:
    “ensuring that Mafia III’s performance is consistent across all platforms.”

    – I reckon is most likely simply:
    “Some clueless executive forced the issue in spite of people telling them what would happen – we can’t tell you that or we’d get fired, so we’ve cooked up the obligatory corporate nonsense excuse that won’t convince anyone – we know you’ll all see right through it, so why waste time coming up with anything better?”

    • puppetworx
    • 3 years ago

    Not very progressive.

      • superjawes
      • 3 years ago

      But quite [i<]courageous[/i<] in the Apple sense.

    • Axiomatic
    • 3 years ago

    I’ve stopped buying ports. They leave me frustrated. Always.

      • TwoEars
      • 3 years ago

      I take it you didn’t play GTA V. It was actually pretty good.

        • GrimDanfango
        • 3 years ago

        It was exceptionally good. It runs considerably better almost-maxed-out than GTA 4 does with even moderate settings on my same GTX980 system!
        It’s an exemplary port.

        • superjawes
        • 3 years ago

        Exception that proves the rule?

        Also, ~2.5 years after the original release on PS3/XB360…

        • Meadows
        • 3 years ago

        Because it wasn’t a direct port but was actually actively worked on for more than a year specifically for the PC.

    • TwoEars
    • 3 years ago

    I hear the game is pretty bad anyway, they were probably doing you a favor.

    • Firestarter
    • 3 years ago

    If I wanted performance consistent with consoles I wouldn’t have bought a PC, now would I? I actually like good console ports because they have great controller support which is nice for gaming on the couch, which makes bad console ports just stand out even more.

    • DPete27
    • 3 years ago

    I thought console games were lowering rendering resolution to maintain 60fps. I can see why PC gamers are outraged, but owners of the console version should be upset with 30fps also.

    [quote<]"ensuring that Mafia III's performance is consistent across all platforms."[/quote<] What a load of crap.

      • Narishma
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<]owners of the console version should be upset with 30fps also[/quote<] Console owners in general don't know or care about framerate or resolution. If they did and based their games purchases on it game developers would take notice.

    • just brew it!
    • 3 years ago

    They claim they are releasing a patch this weekend to uncap the frame rate.

    • USAFTW
    • 3 years ago

    Shame III turned out like this. II was quite a good game and very well optimized for PCs.

      • ozzuneoj
      • 3 years ago

      [quote<] Shame III [/quote<] Maybe they should have called it that.

    • odizzido
    • 3 years ago

    Low frame rates is one of the big reasons I don’t own any consoles.

      • bfar
      • 3 years ago

      Its not as big a deal when you’re sitting six feet from your diaplay, in fairness.

        • meerkt
        • 3 years ago

        Depends on the size of the monitor.

    • Wildchild
    • 3 years ago

    Do people find this kind of thing surprising still?

      • DPete27
      • 3 years ago

      Considering that every time it happens the dev. gets crucified for it, yeah, you’d think they’d learn what gamers want/expect eventually.

        • travbrad
        • 3 years ago

        but then they don’t sell many PC copies and can say “see it wasn’t worth the effort anyway, most of our sales are on consoles”, ignoring that one of the reasons for that is their bad ports.

      • Meadows
      • 3 years ago

      I hope you’re not suggesting apathy as an alternative, because that will only lead to this kind of crap becoming the norm.

    • NTMBK
    • 3 years ago

    Jeeze. I grew up on 15-20fps games on the N64. Kids today are spoilt.

      • Chrispy_
      • 3 years ago

      Which is fine if you only paid N64 prices for your GTX1080 and 4K monitor.

      • odizzido
      • 3 years ago

      That’s because the N64 was a pile of garbage. PC hardware at the time could drive 3d games at way higher frame rates.

        • Bauxite
        • 3 years ago

        Hell, I remember playing psuedo-emulated N64 games at higher resolutions and better detail only a few years after it came out.

        • Horshu
        • 3 years ago

        And yet the games were fun. Weird!

          • odizzido
          • 3 years ago

          Yeah, I thought mario64 was very good. The console itself was still garbage.

        • jdevers
        • 3 years ago

        The N64 was released in June 1996. The 3Dfx Voodoo was launched in November of 1996. At the time of release for the N64 it was better than anything on the PC, just not for long.

        It is faster and easier to design a 3D video card than a complete system with the same capabilities both from a technical and a marketing standpoint. This is why PC graphics have been ahead of consoles for the last 20 years.

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 3 years ago

          Quake 1 launched June 22 1996, it ran on a Pentium 75 mhz. So a CPU produced in 1994 was capable of N64 level graphics.

            • Concupiscence
            • 3 years ago

            Paired with a 3D accelerator it’d be a wash. The N64 port enjoyed colored lighting and 16-bit lightmaps, but all textures were half-size to fit in the console’s 4 MB RAM and to keep the cartridge manufacturing cost down, and some geometric details were also removed to save memory. If you had a Rendition Verité V1000 you’d enjoy 3D early with proper overbrighting and optional antialiasing through the VQuake port; later the GLQuake port was a quick ‘n’ dirty hack that looked washed out but ran well on a variety of contemporary hardware, and the texture resolution plus uncompromised level detail in PC Quake might put it over the N64 port.

            Having run Quake on a Pentium 90 with 8 MB RAM and no 3D accelerator in 1996, I’ll estimate the N64 probably offered the superior experience in terms of overall visual dimension and smoothness when things got busy. But the Pentium 90 could be upgraded, and it was…

        • Spunjji
        • 3 years ago

        Man, you must have HATED the Playstation.

        • Concupiscence
        • 3 years ago

        >> That’s because the N64 was a pile of garbage.

        No, whippersnapper, not initially. By mid-1996 standards it was studly for its price point of $200, and for a little while it was the fastest 3D part available in consumer-level hardware. The fall of EDO DRAM prices allowed 3Dfx to move in with its consumer Voodoo Graphics board later that same year, but even that was only 40% faster, cost more than an N64 brand new, and required an additional PCI slot on top of whatever the video solution in the system was. The N64’s graphics part also managed “free” trilinear filtering, but shared a whopping 4 MB of memory with the rest of the system. The later RAM expansion pack let the hardware flex its muscles a bit more. It still wasn’t [i<]sexy[/i<] at that point, but given its limitations it could have held up worse. I'm casting one beady, contemptuous eye at you, PS1 3D. >> PC hardware at the time could drive 3d games at way higher frame rates. It did get very fast very quickly, but it still took years to get there at a reasonable price point, let alone a comparable one. PC hardware was terribly expensive at the time. Sure, a Pentium II 400 with a Voodoo2 SLI and Nvidia Riva TNT in 1998 would beat the everloving snot out of an N64. It would also cost at least four times as much.

      • travbrad
      • 3 years ago

      I grew up playing NES and a lot of those games ran at 60FPS. I guess kids in the 80s were spoiled too.

        • jihadjoe
        • 3 years ago

        I used to hang out at the arcades and play the crap out of Sega’s Model 2 games. Daytona USA, Virtua Fighter 2…. Beautiful 3D running at a sweet 60fps.

    • superjawes
    • 3 years ago

    “We just want a consistent experience.”
    “This frame rate makes for a ‘cinematic’ experience.”
    “Piracy accounts for at least 50% of the PC market.”

    PC gamers know BS when they see/smell it.

      • just brew it!
      • 3 years ago

      “More cinematic” == “yes, we’re still stuck with frame rates which were determined based on the limitations of 1920s technology”

    • Prestige Worldwide
    • 3 years ago

    30 fps in an AAA PC release is simply unacceptable in 2016.

      • chuckula
      • 3 years ago

      It used to look bad to me but now I find it….. [i<]simply unacceptable[/i<].

        • derFunkenstein
        • 3 years ago

        Might as well face it, you’re addicted to frames

          • MileageMayVary
          • 3 years ago

          These textures just look horrible.
          This lag is quite deplorable.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 3 years ago

            Can’t release on time,
            There’s no telling where the money went.

            • Shobai
            • 3 years ago

            Preorder? Decline! There’s no other way to go!

      • DoomGuy64
      • 3 years ago

      Especially now that most gaming monitors do 144 hz.

        • Airmantharp
        • 3 years ago

        I replay the Mass Effect series (despite the ending) every couple of years now. Now with a 144Hz G-Sync monitor, playing through again, it is really very nice despite each games’ flaws.

        (do note: one of those flaws is in the third game, where some change in the physics requires you to limit the framerate in order to use your abilities from behind cover, which is absolutely necessary when playing on the higher difficulty levels- I found 92FPS recommended with a quick google search and it does indeed work…)

      • bfar
      • 3 years ago

      It was unacceptable back in 2006 when publishers began selling mutiplatform games in earnest. Fast forward 10 years and most of them are still making the same old mistakes.

      How many publishers have dug themselves this exact same hole in the last year alone?

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This