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

curl-6 on 03 November 2014
hinch said:
curl-6 said:
Framerate > resolution.

If they couldn't maintain 60fps on PS4 they should have implemented dynamic resolution there too.

insert [Whycantwehaveboth gif].

Nah. Maybe for you. Anyway a few occasional drops in framerate (in a singleplayer) isn't going to be much noticable to much people; unless it spikes a lot - which this doesn't. Its fine.

We could have both, if either the game was less visually complex, or more specifically optimized for PS4, or if the hardware was more powerful.

The resolution difference likely isn't going to be noticeable to most people, since they're literally the same resolution in many scenes.



Around the Network
Headshot on 03 November 2014
ethomaz said:

Headshot said:

Even when it is as minimal as it is stated in this article? Minimal drops from 60 to 50 or the very rare case of screen tearing? Does this effect you when you're playing?

60-40fps is not minimal for me... even if it happens only one time I will notice.

In SP could be a minor but  in MP can cost your life (or kill).


This article claims it only drops to the high 40's though which is little more than 10 FPS. I've never felt that slight FPS drops the odd time would effect my multiplayer experience to a significant degree. Have you ever played Dark souls Pvp?



hadlee73 on 03 November 2014

If its only in the single player component then no-one will care.



kristianity77 on 03 November 2014

Some people here really need to take a day off. From that video the campaign runs pretty much between 50 and 60fps at 1080p on the PS4. Thats pretty much in line framerate wise with every single COD campaign ever released on home console. Yes the Xbox One version is running slightly better but its running at a lower resolution.

The framerate dips in the campaign mode are akin to the dips that you would see in Last Of Us Remastered. That was 60 for much of the time with dips into the 50s and did that ruin that game? Did it heck!

The meat and potato's of COD is multiplayer, and the both versions look like they are rock solid there at 60fps (of course, there is a lot less going on in multiplayer maps, like less set pieces etc) so whats the big deal?





PREDICTIONS FOR END OF 2015: (Made Jan 1st 2015)

PS4 - 34M - XB1 - 21m - WII U -12M

hinch on 03 November 2014
curl-6 said:
hinch said:
curl-6 said:
Framerate > resolution.

If they couldn't maintain 60fps on PS4 they should have implemented dynamic resolution there too.

insert [Whycantwehaveboth gif].

Nah. Maybe for you. Anyway a few occasional drops in framerate (in a singleplayer) isn't going to be much noticable to much people; unless it spikes a lot - which this doesn't. Its fine.

We could have both, if either the game was less visually complex, or more specifically optimized for PS4, or if the hardware was more powerful.

Well, the game has pretty good looking visuals going on and runs decent enough on consoles. The PS4 version has better IQ and still runs smoothly (albiet with a few frame drops here and there) and averaging just below the 60 fps mark. I'd say its a balance between visuals and performance. Not many people will nit-pick over one scene where your frame drops but ho-hum thats the  internet for you. A more meaningful comparision will be showing an overall average of fps in levels rather than a few select scenes.

The resolution difference likely isn't going to be noticeable to most people, since they're literally the same resolution in many scenes.

Eh, since I'm all for the visuals, a few minor drops in fps isn't going to hinder my performance in a game. But yeah, you're probably right in thinking that most people don't care about that.

 


Around the Network
Vasto on 03 November 2014

Interesting



curl-6 on 03 November 2014
hinch said:

We could have both, if either the game was less visually complex, or more specifically optimized for PS4, or if the hardware was more powerful.

Well, the game has pretty good looking visuals going on and runs decent enough on consoles. The PS4 version has better IQ and still runs smoothly (albiet with a few frame drops here and there) and averaging just below the 60 fps mark. I'd say its a balance between visuals and performance. Not many people will nit-pick over one scene where your frame drops but ho-hum thats the  internet for you. A more meaningful comparision will be showing an overall average of fps in levels rather than a few select scenes.

The resolution difference likely isn't going to be noticeable to most people, since they're literally the same resolution in many scenes.

Eh, since I'm all for the visuals, a few minor drops in fps isn't going to hinder my performance in a game. But yeah, you're probably right in thinking that most people don't care about that.

 

Looking at this generation so far I wouldn't underestimate some people's tendency to nitpick, haha. Hey, I've even been one of them at times, I confess.

Honestly drops to 50fps don't bother me, but I'm not buying the game anyway.



SweetTalia on 03 November 2014

rock solid 60 fps > 1080p

X1 for the win.



Praise the One.

BHR-3 on 03 November 2014
ethomaz said:
BHR-3 said:


isnt 1360x1080p less than 900p since 1600x900 is 900p

It is about even... 1.4m pixels... I guess 1360x1080 have only 28k more.


didnt DF say it was 1600x900 a few days ago?

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2014-hands-on-with-cod-advanced-warfare-multiplayer

 



                                                             

                                                                      Play Me

dane007 on 03 November 2014
MoHasanie said:
Interesting. The PS4 version looks better though so I think that's the version I'd want.


the only difference for this game is resolution. everythign else is identical. tha egame is alot of fun. you will enjoy it :)