Support NeoGAF

[Montresor]

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.

Well... to be fair:

Fallout 4: its freezing issues seem to be a bug that can be solved by getting an external SSD. So there is a (non-ideal) workaround
Halo: Looks great, performs great
RoTR: One of the most beautiful god-damn games I have EVER played in my life.

COD BLOPS3's performance does seem horrible though, I will give you that.

 

[omonimo]

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.

Isn't it like any other Blops on console? Why it's just now bothersome?

 

[Orayn]

Isn't it like any other Blops on console? Why it's just now bothersome?

The only other console CoD games with this kind of frame rate were Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U.

 

[Bolivar687]

Isn't it like any other Blops on console? Why it's just now bothersome?

Yep. Black Ops 1 even had framerate issues during multiplayer.

I get that people are worried about the longevity of current Gen hardware but Treyarch games really should not be the barometer for that.

 

[Smutpeddler]

Fuck. We need new consoles.

 

[omonimo]

The only other console CoD games with this kind of frame rate were Black Ops II and Ghosts on Wii U.

I remembered Blops 1 had notable drops too during the most pyrotechnics scenes.

 

[Insane Metal]

Damn.... that sucks.

 

[qa_engineer]

Isn't it like any other Blops on console? Why it's just now bothersome?

Because its hard to tell if its the developers, the cumulative effects of the ambitious AI + graphical effects + onscreen objects etc., or the consoles itself that are to blame.

This isn't a launch title running on exotic, non x86 hardware, so my thoughts are that developers should have a firm grasp on how to get their games running smoothly. My statement holds true for many other developers and not just treyarch. But if we're okay with games running poorly then that's cool too.

 

[RoboPlato]

Yeah, performance is definitely shaky on PS4. I did find that the later missions ran better but this is probably the most unstable CoD I've played. The third mission didn't even seem like it hit 60 at all.

 

[omonimo]

Because its hard to tell if its the developers, the cumulative effects of the ambitious AI + graphical effects + onscreen objects etc., or the consoles itself that are to blame.

This isn't a launch title running on exotic, non x86 hardware, so my thoughts are that developers should have a firm grasp on how to get their games running smoothly. My statement holds true for many other developers and not just treyarch

Many other? Like? Because from now most of the games run better of the past generation. Not sure where coming this convinction. Sometimes the statement about the general performance of this generation seems quite hyperbolic.

 

[RoboPlato]

Because its hard to tell if its the developers, the cumulative effects of the ambitious AI + graphical effects + onscreen objects etc., or the consoles itself that are to blame.

This isn't a launch title running on exotic, non x86 hardware, so my thoughts are that developers should have a firm grasp on how to get their games running smoothly. My statement holds true for many other developers and not just treyarch. But if we're okay with games running poorly then that's cool too.

Doesn't this game also run poorly on PC?

 

[AndyD]

Heh, these DF videos are getting better and better.

Yea I noticed that too. It seems they are learning from people's complaints and requests and addressing them up front rather than in the forum and subsequent videos.

 

[qa_engineer]

Doesn't this game also run poorly on PC?

Not sure. But if that is the case is it the developers that are to blame? I think the person who commented above you thinks I am attacking consoles. I am just wondering why this game is running so badly... and I'm leaning towards the developers.

Many other? Like? Because from now most of the games run better of the past generation. Not sure where coming this convinction. Sometimes the statement about the general performance of this generation seems quite hyperbolic.

I think there may be a language barrier because you're seemingly getting defensive for no reason.

 

[omonimo]

Not sure. But if that is the case is it the developers that are to blame? I think the person who commented above you thinks I am attacking consoles. I am just wondering why this game is running so badly... and I'm leaning towards the developers.

Game seems quite demanding on PC too.

I think there may be a language barrier because you're seemingly getting defensive for no reason.

It was a genuine question. I'm just asking where coming this conviction.

 

[Bolivar687]

Because its hard to tell if its the developers, the cumulative effects of the ambitious AI + graphical effects + onscreen objects etc., or the consoles itself that are to blame.

This isn't a launch title running on exotic, non x86 hardware, so my thoughts are that developers should have a firm grasp on how to get their games running smoothly. My statement holds true for many other developers and not just treyarch. But if we're okay with games running poorly then that's cool too.

I'm not sure if you've played the campaign but it's largely a series of wide hallways. I'm not sure where the concern about ambitious AI and effects are coming from.

Again, we have its predecessor from last year with a much better IQ running without resolution scaling on PS4, without the dramatic dips, not halving it's framerate during exposition sequences and, from what I've seen, much more dynamic levels and overall design.

Purely on the technical side, Treyarch is well known to be the red headed step child of the Cod studios. I would be surprised if IW and Sledgehammer followed up their 1080p60 games with something like this.

 

[qa_engineer]

I'm not sure if you've played the campaign but it's largely a series of wide hallways. I'm not sure where the concern about ambitious AI and effects about ready coming from.

Again, we have its predecessor from last year with a much better IQ running without resolution scaling on PS4, without the dramatic dips, not halving it's framerate during exposition sequences and, from what I've seen, much more dynamic levels and overall design.

Purely on the technical side, Treyarch is well known to be the red headed step child of the Cod studios. Arguing that away, coming off of two 1080p60 iterations, just makes your motives a little transparent.

Jesus. We really can't post in these threads anymore without someone going off about motives and hidden agendas. One can't post what they;re thinking without it being some type of console, PC fanboy spin. Please tell me, what is my motive?

 

[Bolivar687]

Jesus. We really can't post in these threads anymore without someone going off about motives and hidden agendas. One can't post what they;re thinking without it being some type of console, PC fanboy spin. Please tell me, what is my motive?

Sorry, read your post above and edited that. It just seems like people are ignoring a lot of games and developer history in saying this stuff.

 

[nOoblet16]

I'm not sure if you've played the campaign but it's largely a series of wide hallways. I'm not sure where the concern about ambitious AI and effects are coming from.

Again, we have its predecessor from last year with a much better IQ running without resolution scaling on PS4, without the dramatic dips, not halving it's framerate during exposition sequences and, from what I've seen, much more dynamic levels and overall design.

Purely on the technical side, Treyarch is well known to be the red headed step child of the Cod studios. I would be surprised if IW and Sledgehammer followed up their 1080p60 games with something like this.

Yea that is just not true.
Black Ops 3 whether you agree with it or not is definitely more ambitious, uses more advanced tech (the real time lighting and shadowing is considerably ahead of Advanced Warfare) and is the bigger game out of the two.

 

[omonimo]

Jesus. We really can't post in these threads anymore without someone going off about motives and hidden agendas. One can't post what they;re thinking without it being some type of console, PC fanboy spin. Please tell me, what is my motive?

It's not that problem. If you claim many of developers seems to have difficult to get good performance with this generation, you are completely wrong or you never played on console before, because this generation it's far more generous of the ps360 era in terms of fps performance. That's why it's not exactly clear what is it your point and someone could appear so defensiveness.

 

[Windom Earle]

Thread about performance, OP doesn't mention console with better performance (PS4).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eek-JUnFQ40

 

[Jebron]

Thread about performance, OP doesn't mention console with better performance (PS4).

Really bud?

 

[Emperor Bohe]

I don't get it. AW looked and performed better last year, especially on Xbone. Wassup?

Treyarch may be the best when it comes to designing multiplayer gameplay design and maps, but they were always behind when it came to tech, graphics and performance IMO. It was especially noticeable when going from MW2 graphics to BLOPS1 graphics(which is my favorite Cod, so no hate here).

 

[Astral Dog]

Hmm, thats weird i thought this game got great reviews (like, much better than last year and other CoDs).

 

[omonimo]

Hmm, thats weird i thought this game got great reviews (like, much better than last year and other CoDs).

Well I imagine it's more fun. Performance it's another thing

 

[Jack The Nipper]

Isn't the article basically saying the x1 is mostly a 720p game and the ps4 is mostly 1080p?

 

[KainXVIII]

Yikes, from 60 fps down to 23 fps, that harsh!

 

[Alpha Phoenix]

That's really weird considering AW was pretty much perfect. And Black Ops doesn't even look that much better.

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

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.

Have you played through the campaign of Advanced Warfare on PS4? That game looks legit new gen COD, great graphics, fantastic frame rate, superb animation and lighting!


Unfortunately Treyarch's Black OpsIII isn't anywhere close to what Sledgehammer accomplished with their debut solo campaign efforts, from graphics, resolution, polish, lighting etc etc...

 

[Kezen]

Doesn't this game also run poorly on PC?

I would not say so but the "extra" texture settings destroys performance. It's essentially unplayable very quickly.
High is fine.

 

[Dictator93]

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.

you have no idea what you are talking about

Have you played through the campaign of Advanced Warfare on PS4? That game looks legit new gen COD, great graphics, fantastic frame rate, superb animation and lighting!


Unfortunately Treyarch's Black OpsIII isn't anywhere close to what Sledgehammer accomplished with their debut solo campaign efforts, from graphics, resolution, polish, lighting etc etc...

You may not like the way black ops 3 looks aesthetically, but every single rendering feature in BO 3 is pretty much better. Its performance, when contextualized by the engine advances and stuff happening on screen, makes a surprising amount of sense.

Then you just look at how the PC version scales on a variety of hardware... and it makes even more sense.

Yea that is just not true.
Black Ops 3 whether you agree with it or not is definitely more ambitious, uses more advanced tech (the real time lighting and shadowing is considerably ahead of Advanced Warfare) and is the bigger game out of the two.

mhm!

Doesn't this game also run poorly on PC?

2 games settings require a lot of horse power and vram: shadows on extra high, and textures on extra high.

Otherwise, its performance is quite reasonable IMO for midline hardware.

 

[babyghost853]

Because its hard to tell if its the developers, the cumulative effects of the ambitious AI + graphical effects + onscreen objects etc., or the consoles itself that are to blame.

This isn't a launch title running on exotic, non x86 hardware, so my thoughts are that developers should have a firm grasp on how to get their games running smoothly. My statement holds true for many other developers and not just treyarch. But if we're okay with games running poorly then that's cool too.

Let me ask a simple question here. If the purpose of the dynamic resolution is to keep frame rate stable, why does the frame rate dip so much but resolution stays pretty much intact on ps4? That should be an indicator that the problem lies elsewhere. From my understanding the way it should work, is that resolution should drop before frame rate, but it's clearly now working that way.

 

[WickedLaharl]

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.

You cannot be serious

 

[Mr. PlayStation]

you have no idea what you are talking about


You may not like the way black ops 3 looks aesthetically, but every single rendering feature in BO 3 is pretty much better. Its performance, when contextualized by the engine advances and stuff happening on screen, makes a surprising amount of sense.

Then you just look at how the PC version scales on a variety of hardware... and it makes even more sense.


mhm!


2 games settings require a lot of horse power and vram: shadows on extra high, and textures on extra high.

Otherwise, its performance is quite reasonable IMO for midline hardware.

Many of the sections in BOIII still feels like a HD upgrade of BOII's graphics. I am just not seeing the shinyness of AW in here!

 

[Sun Bather]

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.

You know, you can have very passionate devs, but have the publisher or higher ups demand one thing or the other. The coders on a huge team can't just fucking delay a game because they don't think it's of a high enough quality yet, and they certainly can't keep Activation from releasing a CoD close to Christmas. There's many factors and simply blaming the coders is rather silly.

Sure they could just leave the company then, but the jobs aren't exactly easy or everywhere in the gaming industry.

 

[dark10x]

Anyone enjoy the little "the numbers mason!!" bit at the beginning?

 

[Swarna]

Doesn't this game also run poorly on PC?

No, it's pretty solid outside of 2 specific settings that will only work stably on a Titan X. I guarantee 90% of the issues are down to this.

 

[Kezen]

No, it's pretty solid outside of 2 specific settings that will only work stably on a Titan X. I guarantee 90% of the issues are down to this.

Not only that, the game also stutters a fair bit with only 8gb installed. 16gb is recommended to avoid those, my game does not stutter noticeably.

 

[GameAddict411]

The game is definitely a huge step in term of visual effects compared to anything before it. It's first time I have ever said "wow so pretty!" for a COD game. The performance drops are noticeable for me and for most part it feels better than any 30FPS game. It's not so bad honestly.

 

[WonkyPanda]

This gen is turning a mess. The performance for AAA games is becoming laughable.

 

[Windom Earle]

Really bud?

Isn't that the very point of this thread?

 

[SaganIsGOAT]

Agreed. Awful CoD. They ruined zombies for me. Went back to Walmart and got fallout instead.

Went back to Walmart? Did you return it?

 

[El_Chino]

Is the multi-player locked at 900p? I'm honestly disappointed. Treyarch is my favorite CoD dev but after this lackluster technical performance. The torch has been passed on to Sledgehammer.

 

[nOoblet16]

This gen is turning a mess. The performance for AAA games is becoming laughable.

This gen is turning into a mess? Do you even know what you are claiming ? Are you even aware that most last gen COD ran like this in SP? Are you aware that most Multiplayer games had tons of tearing and unstable 30fps ?

 

[RoboPlato]

you have no idea what you are talking about


You may not like the way black ops 3 looks aesthetically, but every single rendering feature in BO 3 is pretty much better. Its performance, when contextualized by the engine advances and stuff happening on screen, makes a surprising amount of sense.

Then you just look at how the PC version scales on a variety of hardware... and it makes even more sense.


mhm!


2 games settings require a lot of horse power and vram: shadows on extra high, and textures on extra high.

Otherwise, its performance is quite reasonable IMO for midline hardware.

Ah, thanks for the PC clarification

In a way this game reminds me of Hardline. Technically this game is doing more than it's predecessor but doesn't give as good of an impression because of what they chose to focus on. Although this game at least has visually nice moments, unlike Hardline.

 

[I'm Spartacus]

This gen is turning a mess. The performance for AAA games is becoming laughable.

I'd say its a mixture of deja vu and business as usual. COD being a prime example seeing last gen it ran at funny resolutions and some varied framerates!

 

[neogaffer1]

Anyone enjoy the little "the numbers mason!!" bit at the beginning?

 

[system11]

Hate to say it, but in this case, they should just have locked at 30fps while delivering a higher resolution with the excellent motion blur. Right now, it's just too unstable to be enjoyable.

I disagree. It's just fine and would be awful at 30, like all FPS.

 

[Sho_Nuff82]

CoD was sub HD all of last gen. So that is no surprise. That framerate though...Average of 50 isn't 60 fps, just like average of 25 isn't 30 fps.

Needed a few more months in the oven, or at least a few decent patches going forward.

 

[Hockeymac18]

I'd say its a mixture of deja vu and business as usual. COD being a prime example seeing last gen it ran at funny resolutions and some varied framerates!

Last gen a lot of games (I'd wager the majority, but I don't have the numbers) ran at odd sub-HD (below 720p) resolutions. It wasn't a major thing that was discussed in mainstream gaming press, and as such wasn't really a big thing talked about by many gamers (NeoGAF probably being an exception to this as I believe there was performance discussion last gen (even if it was to a lighter degree than it is now)).

Performance has become a bigger talking point this generation, and there are a number of factors that have been cascading together over the last few years to make that happen (e.g. more people have HD TVs now, things like Digitial Foundry becoming big and shining the light on technical performance of games, the power difference between the consoles this generation being a bit easier to understand, etc.).

These discussions were around last generation, but weren't front-page-of-IGN kind of things like we've seen this generation.


On topic, it's a bit surprising to see such drops in both versions considering how well AW performed last year on each. I guess different devs is a big reason, but you'd still think there'd be a fair amount of engine optimization sharing going on between all COD devs...

 

[btags]

I can understand people saying xbone and ps4 are too weak and that is limiting what developers can do with their engines, but at the same time I feel like if you are developing a game primarily for consoles (correct me if I am wrong, but I have been led to believe that the PC audience for COD has waned over the past couple of years) and do not actually design the game around these limitations, then you are going at the whole process all wrong. It makes sense that this game runs so unevenly, but maybe they should have toned things down a bit in terms of effects and what not to actually achieve 60fps rather than heaping as much as they wanted to and hoping that it got close. People have said it plenty of times before, but good graphics are only impressive at the time of a game's launch, but consistent performance (and thus gameplay) last quite a bit longer.