• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

DF: Battlefield Hardline Beta Performance Analysis 720p X1, 900p PS4, Framerate issue

N

nynt9

Member
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...lefield-hardline-console-performance-analysis

Well, the 720p/900p rendering set-ups for Xbox One and PS4 respectively are a genuine disappointment, but the good news is that performance has increased significantly since last year's E3 beta, which often dipped below 40fps in taxing scenes. The big revelation on playing this new code is that overall frame-rates are significantly improved: the urban map from last year's sampler returns, delivering much better performance with minimal dips in frame-rate even during the massive environmental destruction episodes. The new modes all seem to operate very smoothly, maintaining a stable 60fps throughout most of the match.
Click to expand...

umping into a full scale battle across the game's new Dust Bowl map - closest in scale to Battlefield 4's larger stages - demonstrates plenty of performance hitches and dips on both consoles, more noticeable on Xbox One but still an issue on PlayStation 4.
Click to expand...

More details and videos at link.
 
N

Nephtes

Member
No thank you on either platform.
I had enough BF4 at launch anyway that I think I can safely skip this ...
 
N

Nethaniah

Member
The IQ difference between PC and PS4 is amazing
(ly bad)
.

Performance is the most important thing, sure, but a clear picture would be nice.
 
R

Remark

Banned
It sucks about 720p but tbh I don't really care like that. Also, framerate improved ALOT like I don't even notice dips anymore so that's a big plus to me.
 
T

The Llama

Member
900p with a stable 60 fps? Not bad, honestly. Sure, 1080p60 is always preferred, but its just not going to happen much.
 
Welfare

Welfare

Member
Lol absolutely no optimization to Frostbite 3 I guess.

This is so hitting EA Access by the end of the year.
 
M

mcrommert

Banned
So all the improvements Microsoft and Sony made to their xdks did what exactly? Was on the fence about buying, but it seems there was little movement forward in a technical sense and this is just a mod with a single player campaign.
 
F

Freedom = $1.05

Banned
Yeah, the conquest map definitely runs at or near 60 at all times whereas BF4 would see some noticeable drops. Not sure if that's due to the reduced scope of the map compared to a typical BF4 conquest map or if they're just more familiar with the hardware but regardless it's nice to see it run so smoothly.

mcrommert said:
So all the improvements Microsoft and Sony made to their xdks did what exactly? Was on the fence about buying, but it seems there was little movement forward in a technical sense and this is just a mod with a single player campaign.
Click to expand...

it might be the same resolution but Hardline definitely performs better from what the beta maps have shown. Whether that carries over to all of the maps we'll have to see but it's not like this is running equal to or worse than BF4.

Begaria said:
Instead of doubling efforts on making a kickass new Dead Space game, Visceral decided to do this instead. I'm sad about this.
Click to expand...
I'm sure they had a choice in the matter.
 
C

Canis lupus

Member
Was it? The game looks clean on PS4. It's a shame after 1.5 years they couldn't optimize the engine enough for 1080p. I'll be skipping this one, the game isn't that fun, feels like a BF4 DLC and that game burned me out.
 
Begaria

Begaria

Member
Instead of doubling efforts on making a kickass new Dead Space game, Visceral decided to do this instead. I'm sad about this.
 
F

Floex

Member
Pankratous said:
900p means no buy from me I'm afraid. Would really have considered it at 1080p.
Click to expand...

Doesn't this seem, erm, a bit over reaction? You would consider it if it was 1080p but not 900p regardless of gameplay?

I mean, I'm not happy about it but going from no buy to 'really have considered it' just for resolution is a bit much.
 
S

SmartWaffles

Member
Canis lupus said:
Was it? The game looks clean on PS4. It's a shame after 1.5 years they couldn't optimize the engine enough for 1080p. I'll be skipping this one, the game isn't that fun, feels like a BF4 DLC and that game burned me out.
Click to expand...

The logical answer is that they simply make the game out of BF4's existing tools without even trying to improve the engine, there is no reason for the game to operate under those resolution given the massive SDK improvements for both consoles.
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
So... 1.5 years after console launch, full suite of development tools throughout the process, final hardware to work on for 2+ years, no rush to hit launch, a 6 month delay and SDK improvements abound for both consoles..

and they manage to release a less visually impressive game at the same IQ settings for both consoles.

Way to go guys, way to go.

:slow golf clap:
 
T

Terbinator

Member
Floex said:
Doesn't this seem, erm, a bit over reaction? You would consider it if it was 1080p but not 900p regardless of gameplay?

I mean, I'm not happy about it but going from no buy to 'really have considered it' just for resolution is a bit much.
Click to expand...

neogaf.gif
 
J

JoJo UK

Unconfirmed Member
Welfare said:
Lol absolutely no optimization to Frostbite 3 I guess.

This is so hitting EA Access by the end of the year.
Click to expand...
You know I had forgotten about EA Access, now I don't know what to do.

Buy it digitally and get money off (plus I'll be buying in $ not £ so I'll save there) or buy a physical copy then sell when it hit EA Access...

Back to topic: Shame that it's sitting at BF4 resolutions. I'm enjoying the beta (I still enjoy BF4) but surprised there there hasn't (or at least doesn't seem to be) any improvement on either PS4/XB1 over a year later.
 
The Inventor

The Inventor

Member
Pretty smooth? I'm sure I noticed stuttering, mostly while driving a vehicle and looking around.
Thanks, but it's a no for me.
 
SmokedMeat

SmokedMeat

Gamer™
I've finally decided that no Battlefield is worth buying at launch. If this somehow turns out good, I'll pick up the Premium edition for $25 in a year.
 
F

Freedom = $1.05

Banned
The Last Wizard said:
Anytime a dev says they're taking extra time to ensure quality, I don't really believe them.
Click to expand...

Cmon, you think it was ideal for EA to have a battlefield game miss the holiday season and, now, they're shipping 2 battlefield games in a year? In what world does that make sense?

Given the poor technical performance of the alpha and less than enthusiastic reception of its gameplay it's not hard to imagine they wanted to work on this a bit more before putting it out.
 
C

Collateral22

Member
As much as I'm having fun with it, I'll wait till it drops to 30 euro or something, it really does feel like an expansion pack.
 
S

StoOgE

First tragedy, then farce.
Battlefront better have:

1) Better IQ settings

or

2) Substantially more impressive destruction and a lot more going on screen.

than BF4 or I'm going to be very cross when I hand then my 59.95.
 
T

Theorry

Member
Freedom = $1.05 said:
Cmon, you think it was ideal for EA to have a battlefield game miss the holiday season and, now, they're shipping 2 battlefield games in a year? In what world does that make sense?

Given the poor technical performance of the alpha and less than enthusiastic reception of its gameplay it's not hard to imagine they wanted to work on this a bit more before putting it out.
Click to expand...

Two BF games a year?
 
T

Three

Member
Was there another Beta or is this the same from last year? Don't remember if that was an alpha or not.
 
S

Summer Haze

Banned
StoOgE said:
So... 1.5 years after console launch, full suite of development tools throughout the process, final hardware to work on for 2+ years, no rush to hit launch, a 6 month delay and SDK improvements abound for both consoles..

and they manage to release a less visually impressive game at the same IQ settings for both consoles.

Way to go guys, way to go.

:slow golf clap:
Click to expand...

Lmao. It's hilariously pathetic. Your comment just highlighted it perfectly.

Either way, good looking or bad, I found the beta to be nothing more than a boring, glorified BF4 mod. I'll be passing on this.
 
P

Pankratous

Member
Floex said:
Doesn't this seem, erm, a bit over reaction? You would consider it if it was 1080p but not 900p regardless of gameplay?

I mean, I'm not happy about it but going from no buy to 'really have considered it' just for resolution is a bit much.
Click to expand...

Nope, incredibly tired of sub 1080p content.
 
T

TheRyanx2

Neo Member
Possibly a bargain bin buy for me. The multiplayer looks too similar to BF4 to interest me right now, but I would like to see how Visceral handled the campaign.
 
1

1.21Gigawatts

Banned
Looks like they didn't make any progress since BF4.
I know it an other team but come on.
This game should look and run better than BF4, but from what I've played its worse than Bf4.


Right now it looks like I'm going to stick with BF4.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Teardown - Stunning Physics & Destruction - PS5/Xbox Series X/S - DF Tech Review
Review
20
3K
touchfuzzy replied
[DF] Resident Evil 4 Remake on iPhone 15 Pro: Can Mobile Truly Handle AAA Gaming?
44
3K
StereoVsn replied
[Digital Foundry] The Witcher 3 Next-Gen - PS5 vs Xbox Series X - DF Tech Review - RT and Performance Modes Tested!
Analysis Review 2
91
11K
Darsxx82 replied
[IGN / NXGamer]: Star Wars: Jedi Survivor PS5 vs Xbox Series X|S Patch 7 Performance Review
3
4K
adamsapple replied
DF: Hogwarts Legacy - DF Tech Review - PS5 vs Xbox Series X/S - 21 Mode Variations Tested
4 5 6 7 8
395
41K
MP! replied
Top Bottom