-
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.
Eurogamer: COD: Advanced Warfare's campaign runs more smoothly on XB1 than on PS4
- Thread starter shinobi602
- Start date
Woo-Fu
Banned
It is a beard.
shadowsdarknes
Member
We've got an astroturfer.
Pathfinder
Member
You're calling the PS4 version half-assed just because they were able to get better FPS out of a dynamic resolution method on XO versus static resolution on PS4?
Yikes...
To recap: You only buy games for the Xbox One. You don't buy games for the Playstation 4, because it lacks games. When you compare the games you bought for your Xbox One with the games that you didn't buy for your Playstation 4, they look the same to you.
Can I have your PS4? I am not joking I will pay you $100 USD right now.
Chris Metal
Member
i had to read it twice to find where they wrote how MP is locked to lower res in XB1 and locked to 60 fps on PS4.
If someone didnt write it here, I would have never found it, thats how much importance they gave to the MP part of COD... which is... hilarious.
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
Over no screen tearing?, of course not.
Again, because people seem to have short term memories, the PS4's performance metrics tally up around the same framerates of the 360 COD's. The digital foundry coined 'perceptual fps' holds up well to the point where Sledgehammer probably thought the trade off for superior IQ was fine, which it is.
The XB1's dynamic framebuffer for a more consistent 60fps is the outlier of all COD's so far, and they probably wanted to avoid the 900p moniker for their #1 sponsored MS title.
The XB1's dynamic framebuffer for a more consistent 60fps is the outlier of all COD's so far, and they probably wanted to avoid the 900p moniker for their #1 sponsored MS title.
7DollarHagane
Banned
If it was just drops to 50-55 I can see that. Performance demands vary greatly in a bit cinematic linear game like this.
But 40 is too much. Should have enabled the adaptive resolution on ps4 for frames below 50fps.
But 40 is too much. Should have enabled the adaptive resolution on ps4 for frames below 50fps.
On the contrary this is the first COD that has had the single player running this close to 60 with frames ranging in high 50s most of the time (or almost a locked 60 for Xbone), all COD games up until now dropped frames like crazy in SP. The last gen COD games ran worse much worse than this on 360 (which ran better than PS3).
MP on the other hand has always fared better and was locked 60 in BO2 for both console and Ghosts was locked 60 on Xbone. DF doesn't states it but it could be locked 60 here too (for MP)
This is odd. So on the PS4 they got MP at 1080p and a solid 60fps, but unable to do the same with SP (frame-rate drops), and the Xbox one version is the inverse.
Could be very minor or virtually unnoticeable tearing (at the very top of the screen).
So yes.
So the tearing could be unnoticeable, but quarter second framerate drops couldn't be.
OK.
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
I can spot screen tearing wherever it's happening. I'll take the no screen tearing version one.
This is the explanation that makes the most sense to me. This is clearly not an issue of parity or paying to decrease performance on PS4 its an issue of extra development focus and time being applied to their marketing partner in order to avoid another PR buzzword. The situation with AC:U is different because it is directly implied that the PS4 version was help to 900p because the XB1 couldn't achieve a higher resolution. While I think a reasonable argument could be made for anti consumer shenanigans with AC:U its not really applicable here.
That said I've only noticed a single framerate drop so far during the first mission when I threw a radar grenade. Aside from the annoying stutter whenever the game autosaves its been completely smooth for me since then over the roughly 2 and a half hours I've played in the campaign.
Pathfinder
Member
That all depends what your definition of "runs better" is.
If you mean FPS, Xbox One runs better.
If you mean resolution, PS4 runs better.
Its not 40fps, its very high 40, basically 50, occurring for only a few seconds after intensive effects on screen.
If you've played a 360 COD, they are very smooth and basically the same way people have been ideally playing COD for years on console, this is basically like that except with superior IQ and effects.
I certainly noticed campaign wasn't as steady as mp on the PS4 version. However it's not game breaking levels of bad for me at all, more annoying (and where I'm at less prevelant so far as well) than a hindrance. MP feels fine though. I'm getting an Xbone this week and even with this news I still would have purchased for my PS4 for the native 1080p mp at 60fps.
pixellated_man
Member
Well since MP is the main draw (by a considerable margin) for me and I imagine most of the Call of Duty fanbase..
PS4: 1080p 60fps >>> Xone: 1360x1080 (static non dynamic) 60fps
Still gonna wait for the full face off for confirmation of the above though.
PS4: 1080p 60fps >>> Xone: 1360x1080 (static non dynamic) 60fps
Still gonna wait for the full face off for confirmation of the above though.
The 1% dot com
A dip in the FPS affects gameplay. Doesn't matter how long the duration may be, it could happen at a crucial moment and it'll throw you off. Tearing that appears at the top of the screen that isn't noticeable unless you're looking for it does not affect gameplay.
But OK.
If you say so.
neotokyo360
Member
pixellated_man
Member
And that my friend is because 50 - 60 fps is smooth to all but the more demanding pc gamers out there. Seriously laughable if any console owners find that kind of performance unacceptable all of a sudden. Personally I would be happy if all games ran like that or better on consoles.
This is good news, maybe next COD will have solid 60 fps with NO screen tearing.
Pathfinder
Member
I think dynamic resolution is something the devs were more than capable of figuring out on their own.
Chobel
Member
Here is where I disagree with you, you assume the fuss about it will be big but I'm telling you it won't any more big than what happened at Diablo 3. And the outrage is happening because the 60fps-ish in PS4 and that's what people value in CoD: solid 60 fps, if the frame rate was the same in both versions + dynamic resolution also in both versions (with PS4 resolution higher in most of the time) I assure you the outrage will be a lot less than this.
Spinning? In case you missed it this thread is about DF article as whole, only the title talks about the campaign, the article about more than just framerate in campaign. And no, not everyone knows about MP, multiple people here ask about the MP resolution and framerate. And many of them assumes this is for the whole game.
And like I said when people discuss parity they talk about the game as whole not just some part of it and miss the most important part of it : MP.
Here's another part I disagree with, because I think most people care about MP more, and we already have game that used dynamic resolution Wolfenstein that didn't have any fuss about it.
Some skepticism will always happen, but you make it sound like everyone will be skeptic about dynamic resolution in least important mode in CoD games. ACU controversy happened because the dev said the both versions have the "same specs" to avoid debate and stuff, this is not the same case at all, there is no same spec here, the game would have been solid 60 fps in 1080p in most of the time, and in MP mode the most important mode the game will be 1080p all the time and Xbone version will 1080p zero time.
The question is how many others? In Diablo 3 the fuss wasn't that big you're portraying it to be. I'll give you Destiny, however bungie guy said there will be full parity, but at release date even though the versions almost had total parity (Xbone version had some stutter in rare occasions) the fuss about it was minimal.
"Just look at how many people..." These people get ridiculed for saying that every time they do it, and they barely represent anything, not even minority.
Then why isn't that feature more standard instead of so many games unable to maintain their target framerates?
Pathfinder
Member
I think it's going to start becoming standard this gen. We already saw it on Wolfenstein, now we're seeing it here.
It's a fairly decent compromise.
Beer Monkey
Member
Well, to be fair, developers implement solutions where only near-the-top screen tearing is the only tearing allowed and the reason they do that is most people aren't prone to notice that type of tearing.
3rdamention
Member
Lol, same thing I thought. Some people cannot finish a thought without getting blinded by their own narrative.
killatopak
Member
DwightSchruting
Member
Well didn't see they coming at all..
GIANKRATOS
Member
In the campaign. In the multiplayer:
PS4: 1080p/60fps
Xbox One:1360x1080p (locked)/60 fps
So yes, overall the PS4 version "runs better".
RespectThySole
Member
There seems to a very strong vocal
Minority that values 1080p over locked 60 FPS. I could quote a long line of posts if you wish, but would I prefer to use my time more productively.
The reason Wolfenstein had no backlash is because there was no marketing deal and no instance of "parity" before that to make people skeptical like there has been now with D3, Destiny and ACU.
There is a clear difference between how things were then and how they are now and if you can't see that, then I don't even know what to say.
Also, Destiny and D3 were always 1080p on PS4 even though there was "parity", if this wasn't the case for AW I believe it would be bigger than those scenarios.
I'm sure some would believe that the PS4 is just being held back whether it is actually true or not due to the nature of the situation.
Also, I never said it would be everyone, " I said some will care about it and others won't." Of course I don't think that everyone will. Not everyone cared about ACU either or thought that it was forced by Microsoft, but I believe that the outcry would be bigger than the current scenario we have here. I find it funny that you actually believe that "they won't even represent a minority", but I won't hold that over your head. I also don't see those individuals getting constantly ridiculed either, but sure.
It might not be as big as the ACU thread because that one had awful PR, but I think it would be bad because of the line of events that happened before it leading to a lot of skepticism, not necessarily whether it's a bad or good thing for the game (as that varies from person to person).
I don't know why you keep saying that I said it's the same situation either, when I never said that. I mean anyone with half a brain knows that there would be a difference in PR so you're not really telling me anything there. Even without the PR, the ACU situation still would've been big. The horrible PR just inflated it even more.
Also, I missed nothing. By the time that I posted that(10th page), pretty much everyone already knew about the difference in the multiplayer resolution and many knew about it long before this thread when Sledgehammer themselves talked about it.
The only "new" news was how the campaigns ran and that's what I discussed because that is what was relevant at the time that I posted. You replying to my post saying that I should mention multiplayer when I already mentioned the dynamic scaling effectively accomplished nothing and makes it seem like you're just trying to start an argument.
We both have our stance on the matter and that's fine. I really disagree with what you're saying, but I'd rather be playing Sunset or AW right now than banter over a scenario that will never happen.
I never intended for this to be a hot topic anyway until you quoted me for whatever reason. There was no issue with the post.
lonedigitalwolf
Banned
XBO:
-constant 60 fps
-variable resolution
-black crush
-screen tearing
1/4
PS4:
-full 1080p
-no screen tearing
-no crushed blacks
-fairly constant 60 fps (locked in MP)
3/4
Winner seems obvious to me.
Have you actually played it? I have.
The FPS drops are being *vastly* overstated by everyone, some people even seem to think it's a true average. Reality: a couple of set piece animations, once or twice on heavy affects for a couple of frames. It's a non issue, they're not even worth mentioning on either system. And the Xbox One is clearly not locked at 60 either like people have said, you can see that with even a cursory glance at the DF video, so it's more like "the XB1 version drops a few frames less than the PS4, on those rare occasions where any drops happen at all".
blankempathy
Member
So no discussion of the actual networks for a game thats primarily multiplayer? Crazy how people can be saying that "cod for the x platform is better because of these graphical features" when you're ignoring any connection discussion.
BouncyFrag
Member
I guess I'll hold off on playing this till I get a bone.