Support NeoGAF

[TheOfficeMut]

I'm waiting for Black Ops 3 in the mail, which should arrive today. How does its multiplayer, with regard to performance and customization, compare to Call of Duty: Ghosts? It's what I'm playing now as I wait for the game to arrive.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Talk about disgusting performance on both consoles. Scrubs coded this game or what?

Disgusting? Really?

Have you experienced the game, or are you just reading an article and giving the typical overreaction.

 

[watership]

Recent X1 games have suffered greatly performance wise.

Cod: low fps and res
Fallout 4 : 0fps freezes with unstable frames.
Halo: cut corners everywhere with worst LOD and pop ups I have ever seen.
RoTR: shimmering plus unstable framrates.

Halo 5 may have cut corners but it looks fantastic and is the smoothest console game I have played in years.

Edit 4 for 5

 

[TheSlySoul]

Yeah, it definitely showed Call of Duty was over the Xbox crowd. Results are a bit disappointing overall.
Edit: Also ROTR has unstable framerates? Played for 6 hours and had no issues.

 

[jelly]

Will be interesting to see if consoles improve as much over the years like they usually do. Devs need to lower the bar instead of going overboard with detail and effects. A cleaner, better performing game is surely the best way to go. I know graphics are a great selling point but they are really quite nice already, just make things not so rough by cutting back on some things.

 

[BritBloke916]

The 30% power advantage strikes again. Somewhere, Albert Penello weeps.

That whole debacle with him was crazy. Being unswervingly self-convinced and yet utterly misinformed about something is a very potent combination. I wince on his behalf for how humiliating his deluded ranting was.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Halo 4 may have cut corners but it looks fantastic and is the smoothest console game I have played in years.

You mean Halo 5?

I think it looks and plays phenomenal. Fantastic art direction, much larger open levels, and way more enemies on screen.

I'm definitely more impressed with it then Blops 3, which I'm sure has more fancy effects going on.

 

[LiK]

started playing the campaign last night and didn't really notice any major framerate issues. enjoying it. definitely wish it didn't have the stutters but whatever. fun campaign so far.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

Recent X1 games have suffered greatly performance wise.

Cod: low fps and res
Fallout 4 : 0fps freezes with unstable frames.
Halo: cut corners everywhere with worst LOD and pop ups I have ever seen.
RoTR: shimmering plus unstable framrates.

Ah, it's too bad Halo 5 has rock-freaking-solid performance, right?

If you're gonna make trade-offs like dynamic resolution, you better make damn sure your frames are locked.

 

[allan-bh]

Edit: Also ROTR has unstable framerates? Played for 6 hours and had no issues.

Has some drops, but overall nothing major and keeps 30 fps fairly often.

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

So PS4: Dynamic res that stick to 1080p most of the time with average fps of 51fps.

X1: Dynamic that hardly if ever achieve 900p with average fps of 49fps.


Difference is larger than I thought in PS4 favor tbh.

Forced disparity!

Spoiler

/s.

How game fares on MP?

 

[tattooed_dwarf]

Will be interesting to see if consoles improve as much over the years like they usually do. Devs need to lower the bar instead of going overboard with detail and effects. A cleaner, better performing game is surely the best way to go. I know graphics are a great selling point but they are really quite nice already, just make things not so rough by cutting back on some things.

This.

 

[Discusguy]

Disgusting? Really?

Have you experienced the game, or are you just reading an article and giving the typical overreaction.

Since if performs worse than COD AW. It is pretty disgusting. It's like they don't take pride in their work. Should have just scaled back of they can't keep the intended frame rate. These aren't launch games.

 

[Bolivar687]

The campaign is fun for coop but Treyarch should be embarrassed to put this kind of performance in a Call of Duty title. Coming off of two years of 1080p60 games, the last of which flat out looked better than Black Ops 3, this is a blemish for a series that for so long stuck to its gold standard. The 30fps cutscenes alone are a major step down for the series.

Will be interesting to see if consoles improve as much over the years like they usually do. Devs need to lower the bar instead of going overboard with detail and effects. A cleaner, better performing game is surely the best way to go. I know graphics are a great selling point but they are really quite nice already, just make things not so rough by cutting back on some things.

Black Ops 3 is definitely not going overboard with "detail" much less "effects."

 

[dead monkey uk]

]How game fares on MP?

Digital Foundry will have another video later this week. They are not going to miss out on all those lovely clicks in one article.

 

[Dee Dah Dave]

I actually think the game looks quite impressive on the Xbox, even with it's low resolutions. The framerate is all over the place though.

 

[sajj316]

The lack of 60 fps, screen tearing, etc. is pretty bad. This is a significant downgrade from last year's game. Sure the multiplayer is better than it has been in years but it isn't a good looking game (in my opinion). A consistent 60fps (or thereabout) has been a staple for this franchise and it seems they are going backwards.

 

[CassidyIzABeast]

3 years to turn in your work and you give me this. I'm disappointed Trey. You're one of my best students...or at least you were.

 

[Spinning Plates]

Digital Foundry will have another video later this week. They are not going to miss out on all those lovely clicks in one article.

I want to see how the 360 & PS3 versions compare.

 

[Ricky Ricardo]

3 years to turn in your work and you give me this. I'm disappointed Trey. You're one of my best students...or at least you were.

 

[Willectro]

Xbox One is such a damn mess.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Since if performs worse than COD AW. It is pretty disgusting. It's like they don't take pride in their work. Should have just scaled back of they can't keep the intended frame rate. These aren't launch games.

I agree they should've scaled things back a bit to keep 60fps, but it's still far from disgusting.

 

[SmokedMeat]

Digital Foundry will have another video later this week. They are not going to miss out on all those lovely clicks in one article.

Then they can milk Battlefront, with a series of comparisons.

 

[nOoblet16]

For Blops 3, yes, but Advanced Warfare was the full package on last gen and shared the same basic campaign. Visuals were downgraded but the levels had to be designed in such a way as to be possible on older machines. May have helped keep performance up on new gen.

Yea playing the campaign shows hownit simple could not have been done on last gen consoles with acceptable performance and still have all the features. Apart from that, the game also seems to be using quite taxing visual effects. Much more so than Advanced Wafmrfare. The 30 FPS cut to opening doors, pressing buttons and climbing cars is jarring though.

There's just a lot more going on, Multiplayer is almost always 60 with a few drops for about a second or less whenever there is heavy alpha. But it holds great framerate throughout otherwise.

 

[qa_engineer]

These consoles are simply not powerful enough to handle 60fps + 1080p + all the graphical bells and whistles. I get that COD has always been a faster pace, twitch shooter so 60fps is important. But the fact that they implemented a dynamic resolution and still are unable to maintaint a locked framerate on (either console) is bothersome.

 

[LukasTaves]

This is why I thought the Halo 5 analysis should be way more positive than instead of focusing on compromises.

343 really outdone everyone else trying to achieve 60fps on these consoles.

 

[Amused]

The 30% power advantage strikes again. Somewhere, Albert Penello weeps.

Did he ever return to neogaf with those clarifications he promised?

 

[Discusguy]

This is why I thought the Halo 5 analysis should be way more positive than instead of focusing on compromises.

343 really outdone everyone else trying to achieve 60fps on these consoles.

Very true. I left Halo for COD MW now I'm leaving COD for Halo 5.

 

[watership]

Digital Foundry will have another video later this week. They are not going to miss out on all those lovely clicks in one article.

The winner this console generation between the Xbox One and the PS4.... Is Digital Foundry.

 

[dugdug]

Yeah, I'm waiting on a patch to keep going with the campaign. The frame drops were really distracting, IMO.

Haven't seen a single drop in MP though, and, I suppose that's where it really counts. Have they done MP tests?

 

[VGA222]

1:45 in the video wasn't a great choice of footage.

I wonder if the full face off article will reference the dynamic resolution used in Black Ops 2 on PS3?

 

[nOoblet16]

This is why I thought the Halo 5 analysis should be way more positive than instead of focusing on compromises.

343 really outdone everyone else trying to achieve 60fps on these consoles.

Halo 5 would have probably ran like this too if it used as much lighting and shadows as Blops 3.

 

[chromatic9]

A million pixels. Still, technically their first game on PS4/XBO

 

[UpUpDownDown]

Halo 5 would have probably ran like this too if it used as much lighting and shadows as Blops 3.

Or if shadows and geo didn't appear 10 feet n front of the character.

Xbone is basically a mess of a console.

Don't really see much to complain about in the ps4 version to be honest.

 

[Mula]

Did he ever return to neogaf with those clarifications he promised?

I think he comes back when the second GPU is patched in.

 

[DeepEnigma]

Or if shadows and geo didn't appear 10 feet n front of the character.

Xbone is basically a mess of a console.

Don't really see much to complain about in the ps4 version to be honest.

Or if it wasn't shot gun peppered dithering everywhere, as well as 30fps animations on the characters.

There was a lot of graphical sacrifices, (to some undesirable), to get that solid frame-rate.

And it's Xbox One where we see the most extreme scenarios where Treyarch's precarious balancing act doesn't really work out. A frantic shoot-out defending a control room is a low point: while PS4 sticks close to 60fps at various moments throughout the battle, Microsoft's system frequently struggles to rise above the 35-45fps No Man's Land, eventually succumbing to a 28fps drop. The situation here is grim: judder and fluctuations in controller response compromise the gameplay, while the dynamic resolution plateaus to its lowest point. It doesn't look great, but more importantly, the feel is wrong.

Yikes. Luckily these games a purchased mainly for multiplayer which it performs better I assume.

 

[daman824]

Halo 5 would have probably ran like this too if it used as much lighting and shadows as Blops 3.

except halo 5 doesn't run like this.

You know what else would cause halo AND black ops 3 to run even worse? Fully destructible enviornments, higher poly counts, or a real time day/night cycle.

Any game would run worse if it had more graphical effects than what it currently has. But guess what? It's up to the developers to work within the bounds of these systems and achieve a visual target that allows them to hit their target performance.

That's what 343 did so well.

Or if shadows and geo didn't appear 10 feet n front of the character.

Xbone is basically a mess of a console.

Don't really see much to complain about in the ps4 version to be honest.

lol here we go

 

[MightyHedgehog]

Halo 5 would have probably ran like this too if it used as much lighting and shadows as Blops 3.

I think the point is that sacrificing higher quality effects is the right call if you truly value great performance that can be considered effectively locked 60fps...especially rare for AAA titles. Seems like only Turn 10 has matched that commitment to similarly prioritized performance with such a high level of consistency this gen while also pushing harder than anyone else in the console arena. That's an increasingly laudable thing given how common it has become to just target half that and still not nail it 99% of the time during interactive gameplay. Does it mean something's gotta give on less capable hardware? Obviously, but the effect is worth it for playability's sake.

 

[daman824]

Or if it wasn't shot gun peppered dithering everywhere, as well as 30fps animations on the characters.

There was a lot of graphical sacrifices, (to some undesirable), to get that solid frame-rate.

Halo 5 also had huge enviornments, reflections in every body of water, ect.

It's a good looking game. Even if playstation fanboys like you who have never played it refuse to admit it.

OT: multiplayer is all I care about. And the multiplayer looks great on ps4 and runs well from my experience.

 

[Justinh]

That's why I don't understand the new Banderas gif that show XB1 blurry and PS4 running badly.

I don't think it's new. From what I remember, it popped up during launch season when Call of Duty Ghosts on Xbox One was seen as having a more consistent framerate. IIRC, the issue with PS4 running above 60 frames per second was patched out. You're right, it's not accurate.

On topic, this is pretty surprising to me. I've always thought of Call of Duty games having fairly stable framerates and for the versions to drop with the dynamic resolution seems kinda...grody. I guess it's more important that the multiplayer sticks closer to the sixty.

We've just begun to dig into the multiplayer component and what's immediately and obviously apparent is that performance there is much, much closer to the locked 60fps we expect from the series - and very much in line with the positive experiences we had with the beta code a couple of months back.

 

[Canis lupus]

These consoles are simply not powerful enough to handle 60fps + 1080p + all the graphical bells and whistles. I get that COD has always been a faster pace, twitch shooter so 60fps is important. But the fact that they implemented a dynamic resolution and still are unable to maintaint a locked framerate on (either console) is bothersome.

Yeah, the PS4 needed a bit more horse power to also handle those few struggling games it has in its library. With a ~2.2TFLOPs GPU and up-clocked cpu to 1.9-2Ghz, I doubt any game would go lower than 1080p and always hold 60fps, considering the difference 500Mflops with the Xbone makes. But then again if the baseline was higher (Xbone), devs would add more effects and we'd still have the same problems again.

 

[OdysseusVA]

What a disappointment these consoles continue to be

 

[DeepEnigma]

Halo 5 also had huge enviornments, reflections in every body of water, ect.

It's a good looking game. Even if playstation fanboys like you who have never played it refuse to admit it.

OT: multiplayer is all I care about. And the multiplayer looks great on ps4 and runs well from my experience.

Look at you throwing around fanboy words so loosely. How old are we?

How about the game really is not that impressive to me for late 2015 standards visually. Opinions, how do they work?

 

[jaypah]

You buy COD games for a 5 hour campaign?

I've played every CoD for the single player. I may have a combined 1.5 hours of multiplayer for the entire series. I'll pick this one up on PC during a sale or something, probably next fall. I just got AW a month or so ago. Doesn't matter as I'm just playing single player.

 

[daman824]

Look at you throwing around fanboy words so loosely. How old are we?

How about the game really is not that impressive to me for late 2015 standards visually. Opinions, how do they work?

Eh, it's a good looking game. I'm going to drop out of the argument now. You can keep bringing up and bashing xbox exclusive games that have nothing to do with the thread.

And nice ad hominem

 

[K' Dash]

Heh, these DF videos are getting better and better.

Yeah, I recently subbed the channel, their recent work is excellent.

 

[GifGafIsTheBestGaf]

damn son, i just played the MP a bit but at least that felt tight

 

[DeepEnigma]

Eh, it's a good looking game. I'm going to drop out of the argument now. You can keep bringing up sand bashing xbox exclusive games that have nothing to do with the thread.

And nice ad hominem

I made one comment about a distaste for their rendering techniques used, but go ahead and label in groups and extremes. "Keep bringing up and bashing Xbox exclusives" LOL, WTF?

Nice strawman attacks. Considering I did not bring it up, nor was it plural, or was I the only one commenting on it. Keep fighting the good fight tho, Chief needs you!

damn son, i just played the MP a bit but at least that felt tight

That is the most important aspect to CoD games, so that is good to hear.

 

[vin-buc]

I don't see the COD:AW looks significantly better than BO3 - it doesn't. And I can also say as someone who has sunk days in COD:AW multiplayer that the multiplayer looks SOOO much better on BO3. The gun models (AND CAMOs) look excellent compared to AW where any elite camo's looked like a blurry mess (most of the camos/gun models for that matter). AW also had color problems - the overall color/contrast would randomly change. I as well as another friend both experienced this on the map "Riot". The MP in BO3 is far superior to AW. I can also confirm that the netcode feels better and is definitely more stable than any other COD launch (on playstation systems).

In terms of performance - what I can say is that it makes my PS4 SCREAM while Ghosts and AW are both quiet on my system. This is after thermal paste change and constant cleaning. I also have a launch system.

 

[Bolivar687]

It's kind of blowing my mind people are really making this about the limits of the consoles rather than Treyarch.

Advanced Warfare says hi.