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

Forums - Gaming - Eurogamer: COD: Advanced Warfare's campaign runs more smoothly on XB1 than on PS4

prayformojo on 04 November 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
Sad to see any developer focusing on something irrelevant to gameplay like resolution at the expense of something crucial to gameplay like frame rate. Especially a CoD developer. Maybe it can be fixed in a patch.


FPS in single player offline against bots is NOT a big deal. Both consoles stay at 60 for online play. Imo, this is all click bait and a non issue.



Around the Network
ethomaz on 04 November 2014

LudicrousSpeed said:

I must be extremely colorblind, I see one number.

This is a basic test for daltonism... if you don't see any of the number it is a good ideia to visit your oculist and ask him to make a more complete test... there are a lot of people with color issues without know that.

BTW the numbers are: 29, 25, 56, 45, 6 and 8.



dane007 on 04 November 2014
ethomaz said:

dane007 said:

thats the video  i was referring to .  don't know, i guess my eyes are not trained to see it like you and others who can .

Curious... can you see the numbers inside the circles?


i see 25, 29,56,45,6,8. did i get them right?



ethomaz on 04 November 2014

dane007 said:

i see 25, 29,56,45,6,8. did i get them right?

Yeap.



Scientificreason on 04 November 2014

I see all six. Winning!!



Around the Network
TheSting on 04 November 2014

So the numbers just blend in if you're colorblind right?



SocialistSlayer on 05 November 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
ethomaz said:

lol Respawn did the same with Titanfall but it is fine for you.

Of course there is no Titanfall version like you are cherry picking because Respawn choose Resolution over framerate... it is too obivous to you don't see that.

Of course there isn't. They released one game and it is the way it is. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Now, if we can move past the nonsense, please answer what I asked previously. In this situation, would you rather Sledge implement an at all times full HD resolution, even if it means the frame rate is not as good as the other version of the game, or would you rather see what the other version got with dynamic resolution but a solid frame rate as a result? Just curious to see if you'd actually prefer a prettier game to a better running game.

would you rather repawn have had the resolution be 600p and a stable 60fps, or 792p and framerate 25-55?
is framerate king?



 

LudicrousSpeed on 05 November 2014
SocialistSlayer said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
ethomaz said:

lol Respawn did the same with Titanfall but it is fine for you.

Of course there is no Titanfall version like you are cherry picking because Respawn choose Resolution over framerate... it is too obivous to you don't see that.

Of course there isn't. They released one game and it is the way it is. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Now, if we can move past the nonsense, please answer what I asked previously. In this situation, would you rather Sledge implement an at all times full HD resolution, even if it means the frame rate is not as good as the other version of the game, or would you rather see what the other version got with dynamic resolution but a solid frame rate as a result? Just curious to see if you'd actually prefer a prettier game to a better running game.

would you rather repawn have had the resolution be 600p and a stable 60fps, or 792p and framerate 25-55?
is framerate king?

There is no evidence to suggest lowering the resolution would have fixed any frame rate issues. They raised the resolution from the beta to release and I found the frame rate to be unchanged. It was still silky smooth for me on all maps and modes besides LTS on Lagoon.

There is, however, evidence that Sledgehammer had a method for lowering the resolution to improve frame rate. They opted to use it on one platform and not the other. Like I have already said, it's not a big deal and will probably be patched. But I would rather the developer not emphasize resolution.

What you had with Titanfall was a chaotic development in a game based on an old engine picked because of a weak link platform (PS3) that they didn't even end up releasing the game on anyway so this idea that they could have instantly improved frame rate by dropping resolution is nonsense. Like I told ethomaz, it's reductio ad absurdum. I mean hell why not just make it 320x200 and have it 240fps LOL!1!

If I had an issue with TF's frame rate then of course I would have accepted anything to fix it. There is simply no evidence that Respawn had something ready. I don't understand if people are being deliberately obtuse or not in regards to not seeing the difference.



2008ProchargedGT on 05 November 2014
LudicrousSpeed said:
SocialistSlayer said:
LudicrousSpeed said:
ethomaz said:

lol Respawn did the same with Titanfall but it is fine for you.

Of course there is no Titanfall version like you are cherry picking because Respawn choose Resolution over framerate... it is too obivous to you don't see that.

Of course there isn't. They released one game and it is the way it is. Thank you for finally admitting it.

Now, if we can move past the nonsense, please answer what I asked previously. In this situation, would you rather Sledge implement an at all times full HD resolution, even if it means the frame rate is not as good as the other version of the game, or would you rather see what the other version got with dynamic resolution but a solid frame rate as a result? Just curious to see if you'd actually prefer a prettier game to a better running game.

would you rather repawn have had the resolution be 600p and a stable 60fps, or 792p and framerate 25-55?
is framerate king?

There is no evidence to suggest lowering the resolution would have fixed any frame rate issues. They raised the resolution from the beta to release and I found the frame rate to be unchanged. It was still silky smooth for me on all maps and modes besides LTS on Lagoon.

There is, however, evidence that Sledgehammer had a method for lowering the resolution to improve frame rate. They opted to use it on one platform and not the other. Like I have already said, it's not a big deal and will probably be patched. But I would rather the developer not emphasize resolution.

What you had with Titanfall was a chaotic development in a game based on an old engine picked because of a weak link platform (PS3) that they didn't even end up releasing the game on anyway so this idea that they could have instantly improved frame rate by dropping resolution is nonsense. Like I told ethomaz, it's reductio ad absurdum. I mean hell why not just make it 320x200 and have it 240fps LOL!1!

If I had an issue with TF's frame rate then of course I would have accepted anything to fix it. There is simply no evidence that Respawn had something ready. I don't understand if people are being deliberately obtuse or not in regards to not seeing the difference.


Just answer his question and stop dodging. If you dont we can all assume what your answer is from your post history...



LudicrousSpeed on 05 November 2014

Idk, try reading? I answered the question.