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!

Pemalite on 19 October 2016
Radek said:
Pemalite said:

You state that this has nothing to do with which console is better... Then go on a tangent describing how your console is better. Stay classy vgchartz. :P

But yes. Horrible ports need to be shamed regardless of platform, but considering how relatively bug-free Battlefield 1 is, I think we should think ourselves lucky this time around... Could have been Battlefield 4 levels of bad.

Alpha Effects* It tends to smash the hardware hardcore.

*Sigh* You just assumed that better specs = better console by default and I didn't say that.

Also I need to be pointing these things out because few days ago there was a guy here saying games run at the same resolution on Xbox One now a days and told me to prove him wrong... And just to prove that he was wrong I had to post 10 games this year that run on lower resolution on Xbox One, which I wouldn't do if he just agreed that it's the case. People spread a lot of disinformation that's all.

I just wanted  my point out that more powerful hardware should run Battlefield 1 in higher resolution like any other game. It's pretty obvious 620p shouldn't happen if the usual gap between the two is 720p/900p and 900p/1080p. If Battlefield 1 drops to around 620p on XB1 then it  shouldn't drop below about 800p on PS4. Not to mention PS4 actually performs worse and has this atrocious bug with 160x90 resolution which makes xbox fanboys go crazy on YouTube and forums. That's all I wanted to say.

How Sony allowed this game to release in such state is beyond me, Good Job DICE.

I wasn't actually disagreeing with you, just pointing out the part I found ironic.
I would also like to think that I am not ignorant about the performance and hardware discrepency between the Xbox One and Playstation 4, so elaborating on that point is far from necessary.

chakkra said:

OK, honest question here:   Do you guys really notice this?  I mean like,  you're in the heat of battle, and of all of a sudden the resolution drops from 1080p to 900p.  Do you stop and say "wait a minute, the resolution dropped down just right there"?

 

I mean, have you ever (without Digital Foundry or any other site telling you) have you ever been able to notice the dynamic resolution in any game?

 

I'm really curious here.

Yes. I notice the difference, I tend to game at 1440P on PC though. I used to game at 7680x1440 and 5760x1080.

When Halo 5 launched I tried to limit the resolution to 720P as it's a quad-drupling of pixels on my 1440P panel so it should scale better.
Sadly, the game will always render at the same resolution, but then the console will scale the rendered scene up or down to fit your panels resolution.

With that said... Dynamic Resolution is a good middle ground between 720P and 1080P and maintaining 60fps, consoles have low-end/mid-range hardware, so it's a compromise... And for the most part it works fantastically well.
I did state that native 1080P resolution across all titles wasn't going to happen before this generation started, so it's nice to see that developers are trying to give us the best possible image depending on what is being drawn on screen.



--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--

Around the Network
jason1637 on 19 October 2016
Azzanation said:
Disgusting resolution.

Dont buy this game, no matter how good the gameplay, story or sound is. If those pixals fall below the standard this game is worthless and a waste of time. - Modern Gamer.

It's a great game.



G2ThaUNiT on 19 October 2016

Is that just Conquest that's experiencing those issues? I mainly play Campaign and traditional Team Deathmatch.



jason1637 on 19 October 2016
gtotheunit91 said:

Is that just Conquest that's experiencing those issues? I mainly play Campaign and traditional Team Deathmatch.

Yup its probably only conquest. I have been playing campaign,TDM,Domination and it runs well with the occasional frame drops.



Zekkyou on 19 October 2016
Azzanation said:
Disgusting resolution.

Dont buy this game, no matter how good the gameplay, story or sound is. If those pixals fall below the standard this game is worthless and a waste of time. - Modern Gamer.

For how often i see this opinion mocked, i don't think I've ever sincerely seen someone claim the lack of good IQ makes a game "worthless" ("unplayable" being a common alternative used). Comments like this feel like they'd be better served in a straw field, rather than a gaming forum :p



Around the Network
ManUtdFan on 23 October 2016

Frame rate > resolution > everything else (esp. pointless effects the master race wank over)



scrapking on 25 October 2016

V-r0cK said:

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.

I have EA Access, so I've played my share of their games. I've been playing EA games off and on since the '80s. I'm not a big fan of EA, nor am I a big critic of theirs. I don't think their games are best, nor worst.



http://writingsofmassdeduction.com

Jigsawx1 on 02 November 2016
Radek said:
walsufnir said:

 

Relax, it's only a video game. Your console is still the best of the best.

This has nothing to do with which console I think is better. If one console is more powerful than the other and this has been proven multiple times in the last 3 years it shouldn't perform worse in the same resolution. BF4, BF Hardline, Battlefront, Mirror's Edge Catalyst all 900p and better frame rate than Xbox version @  720p. I just hate unoptimized ports.

 

No bf 4 and hardlinr runs better on xbox with lower res



Nogamez on 02 November 2016

Nearly bought this on x one as well glad I didn't now. Ps4 version for me then.



outlawauron on 02 November 2016
Pemalite said:
WrathofTank said:

The truth is that if the same game sells on console and on pc, it will pretty much always have a much larger player base on console, including Overwatch.  I've have understood why Blizzard has focused so hard on Overwatch on PC when they have a much larger audience on console based on sales.

Because PC games are more profitable, PC games tend to have longer legs and PC games tend to be the platform used in allot of eSports events.

Every game Blizzard sells on PC, is 30% or more of a cut that doesn't go into Sony, Microsoft or Nintendo's pockets but goes to Blizzard instead.

PC Games tend to keep-on selling for decades. On consoles they tend to fall into obscurity after the initial release, StarCraft Brood Wars didn't hit 10~ million copies sold overnight for example, Diablo 3 PC outsold all console versions.

And eSports is the logical part, Overwatch is a very eSports centric game, mouse and keyboard is better for competitive players, the PC also allows for eSports organizations to have their own overlays and such.

The PC also doesn't charge for patches, so when Blizzard tests a new idea, they test/experiment with it on the PC first, because. You know. Money and all that.

A lot of your post has absolutely nothing to do with console vs PC, but a marketplace that Blizzard controls vs one that they do not.

I think you're way off on your sales legs comment. The truly great, meaningful games will sell well for over a decade. Even moreso now as the digital marketplaces have developed so much in PSN and XBL. Being on PC doesn't make something just start selling well over time. Your comment is also quite strange as the late port on consoles still pushed over 4 million combined with all of the horrid word of mouth that Blizzard got on release date.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.