And right back at you with the rarity of frame drop on PS4.
Looking at the DF video, the frame drops on PS4 are not 'rare', I would say the game is not 60fps close to 50% of the time.
And right back at you with the rarity of frame drop on PS4.
Same here. There is some in gameplay, particularly when dashing but I was hoping it would be there all the time. It's a little overdone in some scenes but it looks really good.Heh, I was disappointed that motion blur is only used in certain scenes. Wish it were used at all times as I think it makes the game look much more impressive in motion.
That's surprising. Is this the first time a COD campaign has not been at 60 fps?
Its in the article.What I don't understand is the assumption that MP will be locked at 60fps on PS4 at 1080p, when the SP campaign dips down into the 40's from time to time.
Has there ever been a scenario where MP performed better than the single player campaign on a game?
Its in the article.
MP has a significant visual downgrade compared to the campaign.What I don't understand is the assumption that MP will be locked at 60fps on PS4 at 1080p, when the SP campaign dips down into the 40's from time to time.
Has there ever been a scenario where MP performed better than the single player campaign on a game?
What I don't understand is the assumption that MP will be locked at 60fps on PS4 at 1080p, when the SP campaign dips down into the 40's from time to time.
Has there ever been a scenario where MP performed better than the single player campaign on a game?
Multiplayer performance analysis is now up: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...nced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysis
MP has a significant visual downgrade compared to the campaign.
All COD games, most BF games.
SP in most games push a lot of graphical effects, animation, physics and particles on screen compared to MP.
To summarize, both hold 60 almost perfectly in MP gameplay with a couple hitches during killcams. XBO is 1360x1080 all the time, PS4 1920x1080.Multiplayer performance analysis is now up: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...nced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysis
For the PS4's typical run-and-gunning though, the multiplayer frame-rate is much like the Xbox One's. Singular frames are occasionally dropped as we boost around the level, but as a baseline, Sony's platform holds to 60fps almost perfectly. In this respect, it's a far better performer than its campaign equivalent - and as a bonus, it holds v-sync throughout too.
All of which makes this comparison quite simple. If competitive multiplayer is your calling, Advanced Warfare has you well covered on both platforms - each servicing gameplay with a strong 60fps delivery that only occasionally flakes out. In the Xbox One's case this is due to a shader effect, and on PS4, it's from alpha buffers overlapping during a kill-cam replay. In both cases, gameplay is not impacted, with each console handing in a broadly like-for-like experience. The only tangible downside is on Xbox One, with its poorer, fixed 1360x1080 presentation coming to bear more obviously than it does in the campaign mode, while PS4 offers a noticeably cleaner presentation.
That phrasing. Minor, sporadic dips into the low 50s in the ps4 campaign is a big deal, but a constant resolution boost at the same framerate is a "like for like" experience.hmmmmm
That phrasing. Minor, sporadic dips into the low 50s in the ps4 campaign is a big deal, but a constant resolution boost at the same framerate is a "like for like" experience.
DF plz
In both cases, gameplay is not impacted, with each console handing in a broadly like-for-like experience
Except resolution has a huge impact on your ability to pick out distant targets. Pretty sure that's gameplay.Maybe read again rather than reading between the lines.
They are clearly talking about the gameplay there and it's right in there in the same sentence.
Threadworthy ?
Read again rather than reading between the lines.
They are clearly talking about the gameplay there and it's right in there in the same sentence.
I highlighted the key terms for you.
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...nced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysisBut while the border of each map is plainly visible on each, there's a drop-off in clarity for Microsoft's platform past a certain distance. The reduction in motion blur and depth of field - in the interest of upping clarity on both platforms - makes its lessened 1360x1080 presentation more obvious. It's unlikely to affect gameplay, but it's certainly a downside to the Xbox One's overall presentation when switching across from PS4. It
Seems like it plays good in both.Multiplayer performance analysis is now up: http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...nced-warfare-multiplayer-performance-analysis
All of which makes this comparison quite simple. If competitive multiplayer is your calling, Advanced Warfare has you well covered on both platforms - each servicing gameplay with a strong 60fps delivery that only occasionally flakes out. In the Xbox One's case this is due to a shader effect, and on PS4, it's from alpha buffers overlapping during a kill-cam replay. In both cases, gameplay is not impacted, with each console handing in a broadly like-for-like experience. The only tangible downside is on Xbox One, with its poorer, fixed 1360x1080 presentation coming to bear more obviously than it does in the campaign mode, while PS4 offers a noticeably cleaner presentation.
Looks like the MP framerate dips that plagued the PS4 version of COD: Ghosts are a non-issue here.
1080p at a near-solid 60fps. Well-done, Sledgehammer.
The dips are so small and occasional that I prefer a optimization instead resolution drop... the issue is not the resolution... these little dips could be fixed with patches.This really begs the question of why not use a dynamic res on the PS4 as well??
if multiplayer is rock solid at 1080p...then leave both consoles the way they are, but if there are slight dips in the PS4 version of the campaign then why not go with the dynamic resolution...It would likely not need to drop as low as the Xbone version, or anywhere near as often and probably hold a 1920x1080 res for the vast majority of the time.
it just seems silly and dumb for Sledgehammer to go dynamic on one version to achieve a solid (or as close enough as makes no difference) 60fps on the Xbone, while keeping the PS4 locked at 1080p and suffering frame drops (as minor and sporadic as they may be)
DF is starting to creep into an uncomfortable place in my eyes.
All of which makes this comparison quite simple. If competitive multiplayer is your calling, Advanced Warfare has you well covered on both platforms
...
The only tangible downside is on Xbox One, with its poorer, fixed 1360x1080 presentation coming to bear more obviously than it does in the campaign mode, while PS4 offers a noticeably cleaner presentation.
DF is starting to creep into an uncomfortable place in my eyes. By way of example, look at the tag lines for the two different articles:
For single player-
"Xbox One campaign gameplay runs more smoothly than PlayStation 4."
Clearly stating the Xbox version is better.
For multiplayer-
"Xbox One static at 1360x1080, while PS4 locks at full 1080p - but how's the frame-rate?"
Stating PS4 is the better resolution, but then casting doubt on whether its truly the better version for multiplayer, which it unquestionably is if you read the article. I know the article makes clear that the PS4 version is superior for multiplayer, but it seems great pains are taken to both report that and downplay it at the same time.
As they said, not an issue that effects the gameFrom Eurogamer:
Whats 44% more pixels and occasional tearing among friends, right, right?
I love how DF does not seem to care anymore about resolutions and *ocassional) tearing in COD MP.
It makes no sense at all, or does it?
This really begs the question of why not use a dynamic res on the PS4 as well??
if multiplayer is rock solid at 1080p...then leave both consoles the way they are, but if there are slight dips in the PS4 version of the campaign then why not go with the dynamic resolution...It would likely not need to drop as low as the Xbone version, or anywhere near as often and probably hold a 1920x1080 res for the vast majority of the time.
it just seems silly and dumb for Sledgehammer to go dynamic on one version to achieve a solid (or as close enough as makes no difference) 60fps on the Xbone, while keeping the PS4 locked at 1080p and suffering frame drops (as minor and sporadic as they may be)
Do they always split the articles for sp and mp? Seems like clickbait to me.DF is starting to creep into an uncomfortable place in my eyes. By way of example, look at the tag lines for the two different articles:
For single player-
"Xbox One campaign gameplay runs more smoothly than PlayStation 4."
Clearly stating the Xbox version is better.
For multiplayer-
"Xbox One static at 1360x1080, while PS4 locks at full 1080p - but how's the frame-rate?"
Stating PS4 is the better resolution, but then casting doubt on whether its truly the better version for multiplayer, which it unquestionably is if you read the article. I know the article makes clear that the PS4 version is superior for multiplayer, but it seems great pains are taken to both report that and downplay it at the same time.
I'm still trying to see the validity of this Dynamic Rez code that Sledgehammer is using, the XBONE version is not locked 60, seems to stay mostly at 1360*1080p and of course there's tearing.This really begs the question of why not use a dynamic res on the PS4 as well??
if multiplayer is rock solid at 1080p...then leave both consoles the way they are, but if there are slight dips in the PS4 version of the campaign then why not go with the dynamic resolution...It would likely not need to drop as low as the Xbone version, or anywhere near as often and probably hold a 1920x1080 res for the vast majority of the time.
it just seems silly and dumb for Sledgehammer to go dynamic on one version to achieve a solid (or as close enough as makes no difference) 60fps on the Xbone, while keeping the PS4 locked at 1080p and suffering frame drops (as minor and sporadic as they may be)
I get what you're saying, but really, honestly, they are a website that exists by gaining clicks from articles that exist to fan the flames of war. I imagine an incredible volume of the people that go there do so not to see how a game runs, but to see how much better it runs on their console of choice. They started, are, and always will be in ''an uncomfortable place '' because of the nature of what they do.
As they said, not an issue that effects the game
What I don't understand is the assumption that MP will be locked at 60fps on PS4 at 1080p, when the SP campaign dips down into the 40's from time to time.
Has there ever been a scenario where MP performed better than the single player campaign on a game?
I'm still trying to see the validity of this Dynamic Rez code that Sledgehammer is using, the XBONE version is not locked 60, seems to stay mostly at 1360*1080p and of course there's tearing.
The purpose of the dynamic resolution is to maintain 60fps throughout, but apparently their minimum is only 1360*1080p, since the XBONE still drops frames, it only means that there are times when the resolution needs to be even lower than the minimum.
Coming soon from a clerk at a retailer near you: "The Xbox One version is better than PS4. It runs at 1360p while the PS4 version runs at 1080p."
and whats the excuse for making it seem as if 44% more is not important?
Whats the point of these consoles at all if 44% is not important? It is not 3%... 5%... 9%. It is 44% difference in resolution of both consoles.
Considering the MP tests, I wonder how frequently the XB1 SP hits 1920x1080. That's one parameter that is really vague.
and whats the excuse for making it seem as if 44% more is not important?
Whats the point of these consoles at all if 44% is not important? It is not 3%... 5%... 9%. It is 44% difference in resolution of both consoles.