By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - Mirror's Edge Catalyst is 900p on PS4, 720p on Xbox One

SvennoJ said:

As long as they can fix this before launch.

Unfortunately, performance isn't as solid as we'd like, and frame-rates frequently fluctuate on a regular basis across both consoles. At worst, a lunge down to near 30fps rears its head in one particular scene, but metrics mostly stick between 50-60fps over a run of play. This causes judder that distracts during high speed traversal, with momentary spikes on controller latency having an impact on pulling off more complex moves.

Oh well, there's always Steam.

At least they're trying their best.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

Around the Network
Sixteenvolt420 said:
Pre-orders aren't looking too hot, atleast on Amazon. Supposed to come out June 7, and it's not even in the top 100.

I'm assuming you mean Mirror's Edge. 

It kind of feels like this thread has been partially highjacked by hardware spec talk. 

I enjoyed the original for most of the reasons why it was applauded; it did something different with the FPS genre. And yes, Mirror's Edge is not really an FPS but a FPG or FPP, both of which terms I think I just made up (First Person Game, First Person Platformer). 

But it came out in 2008; that's a pretty decent gap for a non-franchise game, even though it was pretty clear they wanted Mirror's Edge to have a sequel(s) even as they were developing the original. 

I hope it doesn't bomb or just fall into a luke warm reception of mediocrity; I'm just not sure how big the market is for Catalyst. I'd have to look at EA's sales projections and this is really the first time I've bothered to consider them. 

I really hope it isn't remembered for simply running on restricted/limited resolutions on the current generation of consoles. 



greenmedic88 said:

I really hope it isn't remembered for simply running on restricted/limited resolutions on the current generation of consoles. 

I doubt it will be. I haven't heard people talking about Battlefield 4/Hardline and Star Wars Battlefront as "those games that ran at 900p on PS4 and 720p on Xbox One."



greenmedic88 said:
1337 Gamer said:

Nope. Even with a single GTX 1080 ($600+) you cant do 4k @ a rock solid 30 fps without dropping your settings in some games. No way a $400 console is gonna be able to pull it off. I think were still a Generation of Video cards away from 4k @ a rock solid 60 FPS with high to ultra settings. And even then were gonna be talking about the highest end GPUs aka Volta Titan or the amd equivilent.

Nvidia likes to play it loose with their marketing in the whole "4k ready" bullet point for their cards. If I'm not mistaken, the GTX 970 was even marketed as such back when it was released and it's really a WQHD/WQXGA card for games.

This is where manufacturers can be a bit disingenuous. Technically, you can run 4k displays and even run lower overhead software at acceptable framerates, but realistically, the vast majority of people who are buying these video cards are using them for high end gaming. 

All new, current gen GTX 1080 represents more of a value increase than a sheer performance increase proposition for potential buyers. The same amount of money is buying quite a bit more performance, but like you said, it's just not realistic to expect 4k at 60fps on high settings for everything or even most high end game engines.

For 4k/60fps without running the sliders down, that's still in the $1000 video card range and even then there are examples where the framerates are well below 60fps. 

So really the challenge is getting that level of performance down to the $300-400 range which is:

A) not something I would expect to see by the next generation of video cards

B) still way too high for a $400 console

C) refers to Nvidia, not AMD who are not at the forefront of GPU performance even if for no reason that Nvidia has more money for R&D

 

Why the hell would someone want to play games at 4k? That seems like you're just pushing it.

 

I understand playing at 4k in the future(when it's easily accessible), but going for it now seems ridiculous. It's smarter to wait when the next graphic cards can do 4k @60+ fps consistently.



 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

12/22/2016- Made a bet with Ganoncrotch that the first 6 months of 2017 will be worse than 2016. A poll will be made to determine the winner. Loser has to take a picture of them imitating their profile picture.

hershel_layton said:
greenmedic88 said:

Nvidia likes to play it loose with their marketing in the whole "4k ready" bullet point for their cards. If I'm not mistaken, the GTX 970 was even marketed as such back when it was released and it's really a WQHD/WQXGA card for games.

This is where manufacturers can be a bit disingenuous. Technically, you can run 4k displays and even run lower overhead software at acceptable framerates, but realistically, the vast majority of people who are buying these video cards are using them for high end gaming. 

All new, current gen GTX 1080 represents more of a value increase than a sheer performance increase proposition for potential buyers. The same amount of money is buying quite a bit more performance, but like you said, it's just not realistic to expect 4k at 60fps on high settings for everything or even most high end game engines.

For 4k/60fps without running the sliders down, that's still in the $1000 video card range and even then there are examples where the framerates are well below 60fps. 

So really the challenge is getting that level of performance down to the $300-400 range which is:

A) not something I would expect to see by the next generation of video cards

B) still way too high for a $400 console

C) refers to Nvidia, not AMD who are not at the forefront of GPU performance even if for no reason that Nvidia has more money for R&D

 

Why the hell would someone want to play games at 4k? That seems like you're just pushing it.

 

I understand playing at 4k in the future(when it's easily accessible), but going for it now seems ridiculous. It's smarter to wait when the next graphic cards can do 4k @60+ fps consistently.

The cards from Nvidia and AMD we're expecting early next year will be the first to deliver 4k60 with only few compromises. So the future isn't that far away.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.

Around the Network
greenmedic88 said:
Sixteenvolt420 said:
Pre-orders aren't looking too hot, atleast on Amazon. Supposed to come out June 7, and it's not even in the top 100.

I'm assuming you mean Mirror's Edge. 

It kind of feels like this thread has been partially highjacked by hardware spec talk. 

I enjoyed the original for most of the reasons why it was applauded; it did something different with the FPS genre. And yes, Mirror's Edge is not really an FPS but a FPG or FPP, both of which terms I think I just made up (First Person Game, First Person Platformer). 

But it came out in 2008; that's a pretty decent gap for a non-franchise game, even though it was pretty clear they wanted Mirror's Edge to have a sequel(s) even as they were developing the original. 

I hope it doesn't bomb or just fall into a luke warm reception of mediocrity; I'm just not sure how big the market is for Catalyst. I'd have to look at EA's sales projections and this is really the first time I've bothered to consider them. 

I really hope it isn't remembered for simply running on restricted/limited resolutions on the current generation of consoles. 

Well, yeah. The thread is about Mirror's Edge Catalyst.



1080p on PS4 Neo. :)



Digital Foundry's full analysis is up:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-mirrors-edge-catalyst-face-off



curl-6 said:

Digital Foundry's full analysis is up:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-mirrors-edge-catalyst-face-off

Looks like they fixed most of the frame rate issues, however after the lackluster reviews I have lost my interest. Open world was a bad idea for Mirror's edge and it seems that combat is even worse this time around. I rather play the first one again.



SvennoJ said:
curl-6 said:

Digital Foundry's full analysis is up:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2016-mirrors-edge-catalyst-face-off

Looks like they fixed most of the frame rate issues, however after the lackluster reviews I have lost my interest. Open world was a bad idea for Mirror's edge and it seems that combat is even worse this time around. I rather play the first one again.

If you liked the first one you should check it out. It seems all these useless reviews were written by people who didn't even care about the original. Catalyst pretty much improves upon every aspect.

The open world is absolutely fine even if you don't want to indulge in it. If you just strictly follow all the main missions it's basically the same experience except that you have to run to the start point of every mission. But isn't running the point of the game anyway?

Speaking of running, it's as fluid as it ever was and you will get the same rush you got from the original. The openess of the environment makes it even more enjoyable since you can find your own routes. The original was way too linear in that aspect.

I don't understand the issue with the combat. They expanded quite a bit on it and made it into an art itself. It's much more involved and tactical and needs actual skill this time around. Maybe that's why people didn't like it?

 

For now I will stick to the main missions to completion so I can be fully leveled up and indulge in the many many time trials which are as challenging as ever.



If you demand respect or gratitude for your volunteer work, you're doing volunteering wrong.