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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - BattleField 1 is one of the worse performing tittles at 60fps on Consoles, runs at 620p in some cases! Awfull!

iNathan on 18 October 2016
setsunatenshi said:
iNathan said:

i love to play on Mouse as much as i do on a Controller, sure i can aim faster on Pc but that does not mean i can´t on a Controller aswell, it´s just different and comes down to personal preferences, now playing with Mouse and Kb will give you advantage if you play agaisnt people with controllers and that is why i love Console gaming because everyone is on equal foot, no people playing at 144hz vs 30hz or people with 1000e mouses and kb agaisnt people with "broken" ones. 

Alright so i think we've established some common ground here. That's exactly what i meant by the game being superior on pc. When I'm playing any fps I want to be as good as I know I can be. The fact that for the most part, on consoles, fps games need to have a type of aimbot just to compensate the controller insuficiencies is unacceptable to me. I feel like I'm being nerfed from the start. Especially in a game with the distances that battlefield has, imagine taking 1KM headshots with a sniper using a controler... you'd only kill afk's

yes true, true but that was not the point of our talk.

we are not talking where is better to play but where there are more players, also better is very subjective, for me i would only play CS on Pc, never on anything else but some people i know like to play it on Xbox. 



Around the Network
scrapking on 18 October 2016
V-r0cK said:
EA at its finest lol

I've read a lot of comments like this.  You act like this is happening in a vacuum.  If you want a game to be 1080p/60FPS, then the safest way to do it is make Pong (just regular Pong, not a modern reimagining).  What would you prefer Battlefield 1 sacrifice to lock in at 1080p/60FPS?  Worse textures?  Closer draw distance?  Worse and/or fewer AI teammates/opponents?  Simpler geometry?  Less stuff on screen in general?  Framerate drop to 30 FPS (or a floating/inconsistent framerate)?

Just having 1080p/60FPS guarantees nothing about your playing experience.  And 60 FPS is higher than a lot of other games that hit higher frame-rates, it looks like EA decided to favour framerate over resolution.  That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I don't know why more developers don't favour dynamic resolution over dynamic framerate (or a framerate locked at/near it's lowest point, denying gamers better framerates for the less demanding sections of games).

This hate seems misplaced.



http://writingsofmassdeduction.com

setsunatenshi on 18 October 2016
scrapking said:
V-r0cK said:
EA at its finest lol

I've read a lot of comments like this.  You act like this is happening in a vacuum.  If you want a game to be 1080p/60FPS, then the safest way to do it is make Pong (just regular Pong, not a modern reimagining).  What would you prefer Battlefield 1 sacrifice to lock in at 1080p/60FPS?  Worse textures?  Closer draw distance?  Worse and/or fewer AI teammates/opponents?  Simpler geometry?  Less stuff on screen in general?  Framerate drop to 30 FPS (or a floating/inconsistent framerate)?

Just having 1080p/60FPS guarantees nothing about your playing experience.  And 60 FPS is higher than a lot of other games that hit higher frame-rates, it looks like EA decided to favour framerate over resolution.  That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I don't know why more developers don't favour dynamic resolution over dynamic framerate (or a framerate locked at/near it's lowest point, denying gamers better framerates for the less demanding sections of games).

This hate seems misplaced.

People freak out if a console costs more than $400/500 and then expect amazing performance from it for the next 5/6 years lol.

Something's got to give...



V-r0cK on 18 October 2016
scrapking said:
V-r0cK said:
EA at its finest lol

I've read a lot of comments like this.  You act like this is happening in a vacuum.  If you want a game to be 1080p/60FPS, then the safest way to do it is make Pong (just regular Pong, not a modern reimagining).  What would you prefer Battlefield 1 sacrifice to lock in at 1080p/60FPS?  Worse textures?  Closer draw distance?  Worse and/or fewer AI teammates/opponents?  Simpler geometry?  Less stuff on screen in general?  Framerate drop to 30 FPS (or a floating/inconsistent framerate)?

Just having 1080p/60FPS guarantees nothing about your playing experience.  And 60 FPS is higher than a lot of other games that hit higher frame-rates, it looks like EA decided to favour framerate over resolution.  That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I don't know why more developers don't favour dynamic resolution over dynamic framerate (or a framerate locked at/near it's lowest point, denying gamers better framerates for the less demanding sections of games).

This hate seems misplaced.

Hate is not misplaced to those that play enough EA games will actually understand.

I'm not asking EA to make the game 1080p/60fps, but the least they can do is be on par with their competitors. 620p is a joke, that probably even a joke for last gen games.  As well EA put down Activison's CoD games but at least BO3 on XB1 can run at 900p.



Chazore on 18 October 2016
scrapking said:
V-r0cK said:
EA at its finest lol

I've read a lot of comments like this.  You act like this is happening in a vacuum.  If you want a game to be 1080p/60FPS, then the safest way to do it is make Pong (just regular Pong, not a modern reimagining).  What would you prefer Battlefield 1 sacrifice to lock in at 1080p/60FPS?  Worse textures?  Closer draw distance?  Worse and/or fewer AI teammates/opponents?  Simpler geometry?  Less stuff on screen in general?  Framerate drop to 30 FPS (or a floating/inconsistent framerate)?

Just having 1080p/60FPS guarantees nothing about your playing experience.  And 60 FPS is higher than a lot of other games that hit higher frame-rates, it looks like EA decided to favour framerate over resolution.  That actually makes a lot of sense to me and I don't know why more developers don't favour dynamic resolution over dynamic framerate (or a framerate locked at/near it's lowest point, denying gamers better framerates for the less demanding sections of games).

This hate seems misplaced.

Honestly, the hate should be placed on those that crank out the older hardware and then those that expect godlike miracles to come from beating said hardware to death with a high poly stick.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

Around the Network
Chazore on 18 October 2016
setsunatenshi said:

People freak out if a console costs more than $400/500 and then expect amazing performance from it for the next 5/6 years lol.

Something's got to give...

That's the thing, each gen a crowd expect really cheap hw to surpass expensive hw and yield better if not the same exact results, but each time they end up being beaten out. It would be stupid in the hardware tech industry if powerful hw kept losing to hw from 5 years ago lol, none of it would make sense and we wouldn't be progressing hardly as all if things worked that way.

So far we're seeing benches of the game on PC with various different GPU's and other kit, we're seeing better results on that end in both DX 1 and 12, but current gen systems are just barely cutting it for what the FB3 engine is asking for.

I don't even know why some here would think that FB3 would ask and perform for less. I expect that of the Source engine for it's old age and how it progressed, but not one that only just came out 3 years ago. 



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

iNathan on 18 October 2016

Ps4 test is up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8S4cIUb3Y0



Suke on 18 October 2016

.....Looks fine to me....?



“Don’t follow the hype, follow the games”

— 

Here a little quote I want for those to keep memorize in your head for this coming next gen.                            

 By: Suke
Chazore on 18 October 2016

It's having difficulty with the physics and keeping at a solid 60. Each time something big happens or remotely big, the frames dip to mid 40's and hardly crawl and stay at 60.



Step right up come on in, feel the buzz in your veins, I'm like an chemical electrical right into your brain and I'm the one who killed the Radio, soon you'll all see

So pay up motherfuckers you belong to "V"

JRPGfan on 18 October 2016
iNathan said:
Ps4 test is up

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8S4cIUb3Y0

It has a simular problem to the Xbox One version... dynamic resolution that dips pretty low from time to time.

 

Radek said:

Wait what? 620p to 1014p on PS4 as well? This doesn't make sense, we all know PS4 has more powerful hardware, it shouldn't have been lower than 800p or at least 720p on PS4. Also there is some bug that makes game drop resolution to 160x90 JUST WTF. Looks like they spent all the time optimizing for Xbox One after all... BF4 and Battlefront had quite stable 60 fps and 900p on PS4. Also PS4 performance is actually worse? How? Samey resolution on both and PS4 CPU is only 150 MHz slower and GPU is more powerful. That right there is called shit optimization for PS4.

Yep I think they must have spent more time optimising for the Xbox One.

Both dont run all that fantastic though (imo), the resolution thing is very noticeable at times.