Xbox One Call Of Duty Offers Better Framerate Than PS4, Say Reviewers

Xbox One Call of Duty Offers Better Framerate than PS4, Say Reviewers

The furor that kicked up two weeks ago over Call of Duty: Ghosts' native resolution on the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One appears to have gotten its sequel. With reviews of the Xbox One version trickling in today, some are saying the Xbox One does not suffer the framerate drops that were reported in the PS4 version.

Both IGN and Polygon updated their reviews of the game to note Ghosts consistently held at 60 frames per second, where the PS4 suffered noticeable framerate drops in multiplayer, as had been earlier mentioned by these publications and others.

"The Xbox One release's framerate was far more noticeable," wrote Polygon. "As mentioned in the initial review, Call of Duty: Ghosts suffers from consistent framerate drops on the PS4, especially during multiplayer when action got especially hectic. The Xbox One version suffered no such drops, maintaining a steady 60 frames per second throughout."

IGN's reviewer said he dealt with "occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4, whereas my time with the Xbox One version was stable throughout." said "at least the [Xbox One version] ran stable enough to keep me blaming myself and not the frame rate for any kills I may have suffered." The reviewer noted he did not have framerate issues when he played the PS4 version but acknowledged some users are reporting just that.

Today, also, The Sixth Axis published this five-minute comparison video, though it does not describe framerate problems (or virtues) of either version, focusing more instead on the visual details offered by the next-gen version.

GiantBomb's Jeff Gerstmann today wrote that the Xbox One has a smoother frame rate, but called the difference between the two versions "a toss up," saying that he'd rather play the game on a Dual Shock 4. "I'm told that Infinity Ward is working on a patch to correct the performance issues," he notes.

We reached out to an Activision representative earlier this afternoon to request comment, either from the publisher or from Infinity Ward, about the framerate problems being described for the PlayStation 4 version, and whether they can be corrected by patch. If we hear anything back we will update here.

Console comparisons are a longstanding parlor game for video game enthusiasts and blockbuster third-party titles like Call of Duty are frequently compared to find a leg up for one side or the other. Two weeks ago, Activision confirmed that Ghosts ran at 1080p resolution on PlayStation 4, where the game was 720p, upscaled to 1080p output, on Xbox One. A subsequent explanation from developing studio Infinity Ward said that Xbox One's resolution had to be lowered in order for the game to run smoothly at 60 frames per second on that console; 60 fps is a bedrock feature long touted by the series.

To contact the author of this post, write to [email protected] or find him on Twitter @owengood.


    At least the PS4 players can look at pretty pictures while the rest of us play.

    As Im getting an Xbox One at launch I'd like to believe this is a good thing, but surely the PS4 could run the game at 60fps....if it was at 720p aswell?

      Lol, precisely.

        Nah I think they said they can patch the issue on ps4.

          But what if I join the military and they ship me to Afghanistan and I’m working undercover in a bunker that has no internet access and I get a spare 5 minutes to play COD on my PS4 and I GET OCCASIONAL SLOWDOWN!?!?!


          *explodes into tears*

        shhh you'll confuse the kids. the less on the psn the better,

      haha yep, all so they can say they have a better resolution than the xbox. Console wars are funny

      It is just the Devs. It is not the hardwares fault. Look up the issues the PC version is having.

    They're just shit developers. There are frame rate issues on PC with a GTX780. 50GB also and it uses 6gb ram for nothing. there's a video that shows like 2-3gb is used on nothing but then a tiny bit used to stop hacker in one of the dumbest ways (not allowing 32bit apps run) Guess what that did nothing and people are hacking the game.

    I assume Treyarch's next COD will have all platforms run at 1080p and 60fps. They at least care enough to make the game stable.

      Agreed they're not great at optimising their game, but the fact the game is 64-bit only has nothing to do with hackers, it's for processing efficiency.

        I think it was made to stop people using 32bit hacking software like cheat engine.

      The ridiculous number of hackers on PC are exactly why I'm getting this on Xbox One. Sometimes a 'walled garden' isn't such a bad thing.

      Has anyone asked or looked into WTF the 50GB of data is?? In comparison, BF4 says 30GB min (there's a + but its still 30GB as a baseline minimum).

      There are framerate issues on PC with twin Titans, if Totalbiscuit is to be believed and I don't see why he shouldn't be.

        I can confirm at least that i've been experiencing what he has.

    Maybe it's just me, but the graphics seemed to look pretty horrible on all of those comparisons.... I'd definitely choose a stable frame rate over 1080p for a game like COD though.

    Yeah, i think this is more a problem of the developers. I'd say they just put more time into the xbox one version, or they'd have made sure both consoles have a solid framerate (even if they pushed PS4 down to 720p), and that the PC version didn't have ridiculously bad optimization.

      I'd say they're shit developers, and put more time into the PS4 version, enough extra time to go "hey we have this stable at 720, lets push to 1080", and then flog it off for release. You'd think when you're stealing entire cutscenes from your last game, and just re-skinning old maps, you would have some spare time to optimise the game.

    I stated a few weeks back that it was going to be hilarious if this happened. And now it is!

    Do we now get to enjoy heaps of people crying that NEITHER next gen console can run a "big action game" (because other kinds of games dont count) at 60fps and 1080p.

    Of course they can! It's the first round of games for a new generation, like I said you could have made the argument that the 360 couldn't run 720p at launch. Launch games have always had performance issues and probably always will.

      Your exactly right people are expecting these consoles to be maxed out on the first go to the point of obsession. These are launch games you won't even remember in a few years time, look at the launch titles for 360 were beautiful when they came now go play them. In a couple of years all the games will be 1080p and all this petty arguing won't even matter.

      Last edited 13/11/13 9:00 am

        It makes me so happy knowing there are people out there with enough common sense to acknowledge this!

          How? We've waited 8 years for a console to be 1080p out of the box. Devs/Xbox/MS aren't delivering.

          Using a sort of skewed logic, would it also be okay for all the RROD issues to be happening? After all, it's a 'launch console'. Completely different, I know (broken consoles vs less prettyness), but the point of next-gen is 1080p. The games weren't developed in a month, they had plenty of time.

          I have no doubts that games will eventually be 1080p as standard. But will they be the same level of detail as now? The literal point is: new-gen after 8 years, made for 1080p environments, can't even do a 1080p port of current-gen with texture pack, using similar architecture to a current-gen dev platform.

            but the point of next-gen is 1080p.

            If you say so. I don't know about you but I have my gaming PC for graphics, but next-gen for me is about an all-in-one device (oh look, someone in Microsoft's demographic, must be a shill) with next-gen functionality.

              What exactly do you define as next-gen functionality? What do these consoles offer that the current round don't, aside from graphics, obviously? The current generation is an all-in-one device as well. If you don't care about graphics, why are you buying next gen?

                Xbox TV won't work. Streaming on PS4 not available on youtube to begin with. While current-gen exists, no devs are putting effort into next-gen games = no increase to AI; no better level design; no gameplay improvements; kinect and Move already exist.

                Yep, where are the improvements?

                Multitasking and navigation/functionality features.

                Snap is a huge feature for me, particularly it working in combination with Kinect and Skype.

                I'm largely a PC gamer, consoles for me are mainly bought with as much focus on the media side as there is on the gaming side. I play FIFA 14, some BF4 with irl console friends over Skype, and Project Spark, which has Kinect audio/video functionality.

                Besides that, there's Microsoft account integration which is Skype, Xbox Music, Xbox Video, SkyDrive and I hope to see email too. Native streaming from PC to Xbox, Skype works between PC Xbox, DLNA support, MP3 support as well as being able to pass my Foxtel connection through the console. So this means there's a wide number of scenarios and possibilities when I say "Multitasking and navigation/functionality features", it's not just one or two.

                It's being able to answer a Skype call while in a game of FIFA 14 and talk to a friend without interruption anything, it's being able to watch the EPL while I'm building something in Project Spark, it's getting notifications while I'm just watching TV, being able to control the system while I have my hands busy on my desktop, being able to turn it on and have it waiting as I walk in the door from work, having all my services supported that I use on Windows 8/Windows Phone 8 on my console too.

                These are just some of the possibilities. And while I would never be as arrogant to say it's the best system or it's the system that you should buy, it is most definitely without a doubt the best system for me by miles.

                  I've always found it easier to have dual screens running, with a console hooked up to the main screen and doing all my other crap on my secondary monitor through my PC (given that it doesn't interrupt my game or anything like that, I could watch TV and play my console simultaneously if I wanted to), and that's probably what I'll do with the next gen consoles. But to each his own.

                  Without garnering a barrage of insults, opening a can of worms of getting downvoted into oblivion….. most of the really new ‘next-gen’ ideas for this generation got shouted down by gamers.

                  I understand that people were concerned that they came at a cost, but disc-free play, software sharing and that sort of stuff would have gone a long way towards making this feel like a new generation and not just a graphical leap.

                  As it turns out it does feel like we’ve just got more powerful versions of the PS3 and 360.

            From everything I've read I'm fairly certain that MS and Sony have been working on their consoles down to the wire to get things up and running. Even if the developers have had the dev kits for 12+ months it kind of sucks that things keep shirking around on you.

            Ontop of that, this is a generic multi platform game so I doubt optimisation is their goal. Look at something like Ryse or Forza where they're working a bit closer to (MS) home. Give it 6 months and 1080 will probably be standard with every game.

            The games were rushed out in order to make launch day, they were the developers first go on two new sets of hardware, whilst at the same time developing the same game for 3 different last-gen consoles and PCs. Anyone with half a brain can see that’s not exactly an optimal development environment.

            I’m also slightly confused as to at what point it was decided ‘the purpose of next-gen is 1080p’, that seems to be something you may have decided on your own.

            Sure 1080p is nice, so is a rock-solid 60fps frame rate, but you name a console launch for me which resulted in rock solid performance increases in resolution, frame rate AND graphical fidelity across the board.
            Consoles have been able to do 60fps since about 1995, yet every new generation ever has resulted in a leap in visual quality tapered off by wonky performance issues.
            I don’t see why THIS is the generation of 1080p and 60fps but the leap from say, N64 to Gamecube wasn’t an absolute necessity for 60fps.

            It’s because developers will always, and particularly at launch, push their games to looks as pretty as possible within tighter than normal timeframes and with limited knowledge of hardware. Again, there’s NO precedent in the history of games consoles where this hasn’t resulted in performance issues. The Xbone is no different and the PS4 is no different.

            I also love how ‘Devs/Xbox/MS’ aren’t delivering but not Sony? Did you just forget that one? Or did you decide that “consistent framerate drops” are less important than 1080p?

            Last edited 13/11/13 10:02 am

              I also love how ‘Devs/Xbox/MS’ aren’t delivering but not Sony? Did you just forget that one? Or did you decide that “consistent framerate drops” are less important than 1080p?

              Did you just forget that Sony has confirmed that Killzone is running at 1080p, 60fps? Not to mention that that game looks far more impressive and advanced than this half baked CoD game. As you said, the developers are probably more at fault than the console.

              You could say that Killzone is a first party game, and that maybe they might have more advantages in the graphical development area, but so is KIller Instinct, and it's running at 720p, 60fps. So obviously, the Xbone must have some sort of disadvantage in hardware. It seems abundantly clear to me that it is, overall, less powerful.

              Last edited 13/11/13 10:23 am

                Nope, I most certainly didn’t forget that Killzone runs at 1080p and 60fps.
                And yeah, I do agree that the Xbone is almost certainly at a power disadvantage.

                In fact I said absolutely nothing discriminatory about either console so I’m not sure what you’re getting worked up about.
                The point is Forza also runs at 1080p and 60fps, so SOME games on the Xbone are hitting that target just like SOME games on the PS4 aren’t.

                Saying ‘Devs/Xbox/MS aren’t delivering’ shows a pretty strong bias against Microsoft and is a dumb thing to say. Some games will hit those performance targets on both consoles, some won’t, but to pick and choose specific titles and then say one platform isn’t delivering is retarded.

                Killer Instinct is a $20 downloadable title being made by a developer who haven’t released anything good in well over a decade. I know they’re both “1st party” but other than that it’s a bit of a silly comparison. Forza is an Xbone exclusive too…. Can I ask why you didn’t pick that as your example?

                  As for Forza, it's a racing game. It's hardly difficult to get a racing game running at that resolution and framerate. Not as much detail in environment, 2d spectators, etc. I'm no game programmer but that's not technologically impressive. Not saying it looks bad, but it's by no means a solid indication of abilities as other games. Ryse, Ghosts, Dead Rising 3, etc, all run at less than 1080p. Can it do 1080p? I don't care. I am more concerned about which is the more powerful console.

                  I'm not getting worked up about anything. I have no bias against MS or Sony. My opinions on the next gen consoles is only based on what I've seen from them so far. I went with the 360 this gen, and I would agree that it was the better console. But next gen, MS have been blundering their way through everything. First with all the DRM bullshit, then with their reversing policies, then having their first party devs say "oh no guys, 720p is great, we're really happy with it and you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p anyway", they have shown me that they are not delivering. The more expensive console should be more beneficial, and right now it is the opposite.

                  As of right now, the ONLY reason I would see to get an Xbone is the Halo series, and that's pushing it since the series has been slightly degrading in quality for a while now. So I would love to hear a compelling reason why I should pay extra for a console which has clearly demonstrated that it is inferior in many ways, whether slightly or by a mile.

                That's an extremely flawed argument. You're comparing a fighting game developed by a relatively small 3rd-party team (Double Helix, who's biggest call to fame was a fairly average Silent Hill game) within about a year that due to the genre HAS to maintain a consistent framerate at all times, to a 1st-party shooter developed by a large team that has been in development for much longer than that and can afford an occasional framerate drop (like in single player setpieces, for example). And as stated before, Killer Instinct is certainly being published by Microsoft, but development is being handled by Double Helix, which is 3rd-party.

                  Then take a look at the rest of the Xbone lineup. Ryse runs at 900p, made by Crytek, who are the leaders in graphics tech right now. Titanfall runs at 720p. Dead Rising 3 runs at 720p. Ghosts runs at 720p. The majority of the games run at less than 1080p. It's absurd.

                  Sure, let's take a PROPER look at the Xbone lineup. Killer Instinct we obviously spoke about before. Ryse runs at 900p, and is made by Crytek, who despite their PC caliber have only ever produced average at best graphics tech for their console games. Titanfall was rumoured to be 720p, is still in development, and even the person who was spouting that isn't if they were right or not. Dead Rising 3 does indeed run at 720p, but I'm sure you'll be happy to point out a comparable game utilising the same level of character AI across thousands of entities at the same time that runs at a higher resolution and comparable or better framerate on PS4, right?

                  Now let's look at a couple of the games you neglected to mention for Xbone. Forza 5? 1080p, 60fps. Need for Speed: Rivals? 1080p, 30fps (as is PS4). Skylanders: Swap Force? 1080p, 30fps (and yeah, it's Skylanders, but people are finding it running at a steady framerate on Xbone and with major framerate drops on PS4).

                  And sure, I'll be the first to say straight up that the PS4 is technically the more powerful machine. Nobody is denying that here. And sure, there's been issues with developers struggling with the Xbone's unfinished tools and the initial difficulty of getting the best out of the Xbone's ESRAM setup (which, funnily enough, mirrors the issues developers initially had with the PS3's Cell processor tech). But what gets me is that, somehow, some of the PS4's flagship titles (like Killzone, Knack and Call of Duty: Ghosts, and Skylanders if you want to move a little bit past 'flagship') are suffering from framerate issues, when Xbone games are reportedly running as smooth as butter.

                  All in all, it's a bit premature to be calling the next-gen 'console war' based upon launch titles, particularly when both consoles aren't even out yet. Launch PS3 and Xbox 360 games did not look or play anything near even the games that came out for both consoles a year after launch, and it's been that way in prior console generations as well.

                  *EDIT* So it turns out that the Xbone has one game with some nasty framerate issues; Dead Rising 3. Capcom really don't know how to build an engine, do they?

                  Last edited 15/11/13 4:50 am

              How is it not time for 1080p? Everyone has had 1080p TV sets for at least three years. 4K is coming out. Youtube is 1080p. Netflix is 1080p. Mobile phones take photo/video at 1080p. Again, we've waited 8 years, for 1080p.

              I never said they need to increase all graphical aspects at once. But if a machine with 10x (or whatever) the power of it's predecessor can't double the render resolution, keep the graphics, pump up the textures, and keep at 50-60fps? What's the point?

            The point of next gen for me isnt about 1080p. I want larger rendered game worlds (than current gen, gta v could have used a bigger render bubble), in dedicated servers with fewer hackers/modders and easy and quick access to my irl friends incoming msgs/invites/calls with the ability to naturally and easily respond to them without interrupting what ever is my main screen experience at the time. I'll still buy a ps4 for the exclusives after a price drop, but right now, im with my irl mates following the ease of use and what will be a better multiplayer experience overall.

            If I really need to see something super pretty, ill boot up the pc.

            Last edited 13/11/13 8:51 pm

            Wow, people are being pretty liberal woth the downvotes...

        +1 remember how shonky the 360 launch games were? *shudders* I mean some were great fun but the improvements over 360/ps2 at launch were nothing. I wasn't really impressed till we started seeing games like Halo 4 and GTA4 come out and was blown away that they were on the same hardware.

          Haha you’re a harsh bastard listing Halo 4 as a benchmark for the impressive leap between current gen and the last PS2!

          Halo 4 came out six years into the 360’s lifetime!

          I think by the time Oblivion hit about 6 weeks after the 360’s launch (or launch day for much of the world) it was pretty clear that we were playing games that simply could not have been done on the PS2.
          Certainly by the time Bioshock hit 18 months after launch the leap between generations was completely unassailable.

          You’re 100% right though about some 360 launch games being shonky. The first FIFA game ran TERRIBLY!
          It’s a great example actually: rushed launch title, major developer, huge budget, multiplatform across multiple generations, abysmal frame rate….. maybe people should compare it to FIFA 14 on the 360 before they start worrying about how COD runs on the Xbone or PS4.

      Yep. Made a comment a few days ago in relation to the FARCRY INSTINCTS/PREDATOR game that came out on 360/XBOX/PS2 (I think ps2???) and how it too was cross generational. The first batch of games on a new console aren't that impressive. It's why Watchdogs will look pretty but will still be a current gen game with a slick coat of paint, that's all. Mainly because they've got a current gen version of the game working as well. In 2 years time we'll see some games coming that simply *could not* be done on current gen hardware. There's always a standout game visually in the first batch of 'new gen games', for me it's so far SECOND SON above all of them personally, I don't know why?

      Btw, in 2 weeks, do we start calling it 'current gen'?

        Well "technically" we have been in the "current gen" since the 3ds. :)

    Why do I keep seeing claims that the framerate issue affects multiplayer, but only ever see quotes that point to single player issues?

    Also, 1/2 quotes here don't actually claim to have had framerate issues on PS4 at all.

    What's going on?

    Like I said from the beginning, the only thing this proves is Infinity Ward can't get their shit together. Ghosts is a really underwhelming game graphically, and both systems have better looking games running at 1080/60fps. By all accounts the PS4 has a horsepower edge over the Xbone but people using a game like Ghosts as the poster child for Xbone inadequacy were just plain dense.

    Looks like BF4 has my coin now....especially since they have included kinnect features......i guess is will boycott lazy programers

    Blame the years old game engine, not the new consoles. The engine can't handle 1080p at 60fps. When they finally get around to making a new engine and that baby hits 88fps you'll start to see some real shit

    The game is clearly unoptimised to hell and back, but this is still hilarious regardless.

    720/Stable 60 > 1080/Unstable 60 any day of the week.

    Lucky I'm not buying CoD either way.

    I find BF4 just too 1 dimensional. I love the bullet physics, and vehicles and ect. but the speed, and kill streaks of COD Plops 2 was awesome. i've been told medal of honor would be a good Frankenstein

    its just biased effect xbox fan boys...
    get over it, xbox one lost...

    As others have alluded to, the similarities in hardware this generation are going to make it harder and harder for developers to hide behind the "It's the hardware, not our development skills" excuse. That said, I don't have access to their code to see if they really did optimise it as much as possible for the PS4, but if you have to reduce the resolution just to get stable frame rates, it strongly suggests they didn't put as much effort in as they could have.

    Last edited 13/11/13 11:38 am

    Hey it wouldn't let me reply to @toasty_fresh before (I think the thread got full).

    The whole “It’s a car game it doesn’t count” thing is silly. Everything could run at 1080p and 60fps if you turned down the graphics far enough and arguing about specific optimising techniques (spectators ect) is just silly. The PS4 has better specs on paper, if you benchmarked the two consoles properly the PS4 would be more powerful.
    Getting into arguments about “oh, that 1080p 60fps doesn’t count because ‘X’ graphical function wasn’t turned on” is just stupid.
    COD on the PS4 doesn’t hit 60fps constantly, if they turned some stuff off it might, but the point is the developers made it how they made it and it doesn’t.
    Killzone might not run at 60fps if they added more enemies. So what? It does.

    As far as why you would buy an Xbone? Well, it has better GAMES at launch for one.

    I think Forza has held the title of ‘best car series’ for over a generation in my opinion and while GT6 will be great it’s still a current gen game and the PS4 could well not get a true next-gen GT game for about 7 years going on Polyphonics recent 10 year run of not delivering things on time.

    Dead Rising looks cool and of all the launch games on both machines looks to be the game most ‘breaking the mold’ from its current generation counterparts.

    Ryse looks shit.

    Titanfall looks like it will be the biggest release of the first half of next year and it’s Xbone exclusive, that should be really nice during the inevitable ‘months 3-9 drought’ that hits most consoles.

    I like the controller more, and the fact that Sony have admitted that they strongly considered stealing the stick layout and they decided not to only based on past history suggests at least some acknowledgement that its good.

    Of course these are just my opinions and they’re totally subjective, none of these games are perfect and there’s a counter point for all of them. I just think there’s going to be more interesting games to play on the Xbone to play for the first 9 months at least. So I’m buy one on Nov 22 and I’ll look at getting a PS4 next Christmas.

      The whole “It’s a car game it doesn’t count” thing is silly.

      I disagree. I believe I said this in some other thread, might have been to you, can't remember. Hexic HD was in 1080p on the 360. Are you going to use that as proof of 360 being proof of 1080p being feasible? Of course not, you'd have to be delusional. So while Hexic HD is a 2D game and obviously much less intensive than Forza, it's still fair to say that Forza isn't as difficult to run on a higher resolution at a higher framerate. They're not breaking any milestones with Forza's graphics. The cars seem to be marginally improved in terms of polycount, the environments don't seem that intensive, the only thing that has really ramped up is shaders and lighting. It's completely reasonable to say that it's not able to be used as proof that the console is as powerful as the PS4. When the majority of a launch lineup is in 720p, and you use Forza as proof that the console is just as powerful as the PS4, then it is simply a fallacy.

      You make a fair point with the graphical options turned on and off etc but I don't believe it really applies. These devs spend ages optimising and trying to push the resolution as far as it can go and come to a good compromise between graphical quality and screen resolution. Maybe there could be an irregularity with CoD Ghosts for example given the contention of the above article and Infinity Ward's incompetence, but I don't believe you can use the same logic with the first party titles like Dead Rising, Killer Instinct etc.

      Forza: I like these games, but I'm not going to buy a console just for Forza.

      Ryse: At least we can agree on this. Looks terrible.

      Titanfall: Will be on PC. I'll just get it on that.

      Controller: I actually love the look of the DS4. I may not even get a next gen console until next year at this rate, but I just might buy a DS4 seperately for my PC. Looks awesome.

      It's my opinion but if the bottom line is that half the games on Xbone are 720p, and pretty much all of the games on PS4 are 1080p, AND it's cheaper, I'll choose the PS4 any day.

        I think we’re on the same page as far as the 1080p thing goes. The PS4 is more powerful on paper and from what I’ve read the development tools are in better nick than the Xbone ones at the moment. More of the PS4 games run at 1080p at launch and that’s a good thing.

        As far as the urgency of hitting 1080p AND 60fps I think that’s going to be very much a choice for developers going forward. Personally I’m not hugely fussed about 60fps for most game types as long as performance is solid and at least 30fps (no half second periods where it does 10 fps). I know that’s blasphemous to some gamers but I just don’t think it’s super important.

        The 1080p native vs 1080p upscaled thing is very similar too, I’m happy for developers to drop back to 720p as long as the game still looks good and I can see where the hardware is being used (ie it’s not just lazy coding). At the end of the day every single PS3 game was capable of running 1080p and 60fps if the developers wanted it, instead they chose to push polygon counts, graphical effects, physics ect and often sacrifice the extra resolution and frames excess of 30fps. The same could have been said for every generation since the PS1, developers use the power for things other than ensuring 60fps.

        I don’t understand why THIS generation is suddenly the generation where people have started freaking out about those those two measurements primarily.

        I think Dead Rising is a PERFECT example. It runs at 720p upscaled and I’ve heard that it slows down occasionally if you’re doing something nuts but I’ve also heard that in general the game looks great. I’m 100% certain that unless Capcom had a ludicrous abundance of power (probably far more than the difference between a Xbone and a PS4) that they were never going to run that game at 1080p and I’m perfectly happy with that decision.
        More power = more zombies/ carnage/ fun. If the game still looks good then pour every bit you can squeeze out of the (early generation) engine into more zombies.

        1080p and rock solid 60fps would be nice, but they haven’t been the be-all and end-all of other generations and I don’t expect them to be now.

          I don't really care about FPS either. 60fps is a must in some cases such as racing games but for the most part it doesn't bother me. Halo has always been in 30fps and it's worked fine. As long as it's consistent. If it starts getting like Far Cry 3 was on consoles and tries to be 30fps but dips between that and 15fps, then it's not acceptable.

          I don’t understand why THIS generation is suddenly the generation where people have started freaking out about those those two measurements primarily.

          It's not, but this is more or less the first generation where the resolution has begun to stop increasing, if that makes sense. There was an increase in resolution between PS1 & N64 to PS2 and Xbox. Then there was an increase from that to Xbox 360 and PS3. Now there's an increase with some games, but not all of them. I do hope that by the end of this generation everything will be 1080p, and I think it will be. But it does worry me that the increase is starting to slow and that simpletons are ignorant of the difference and that 4k will be ages away.

          Not to mention that I've been playing at 1080p on my PC for like 5 years now. It annoys me that I can't do the same on console when it's been the standard on PC for years.

          I think Dead Rising is a PERFECT example. It runs at 720p upscaled and I’ve heard that it slows down occasionally if you’re doing something nuts but I’ve also heard that in general the game looks great.

          I'm skeptical of this because it was the developers who made this statement. Not to mention the statement was made on the same day as all the other first party devs made similar statements on resolution. In other words, it seemed blatantly obvious that MS had them all make statements to quell the resolutiongate talk.

          I also found some screenshots of DR3 in their native 720p upscaled resolution last night, I wish I'd saved them. They did not look great, I can tell you that.

          EDIT: I found them.

          Not really very impressive. Eurogamer also cites that it fails to run consistently at 30fps, often dipping to as low as 20fps.


          The same could have been said for every generation since the PS1, developers use the power for things other than ensuring 60fps.

          This is incorrect, unless you think games would look fine with absurdly low polycounts and texture resolutions. Your statement could be said of current generation games, but not last gen consoles.

          An increase in resolution does not equal a detriment to gameplay features. They can decrease texture resolution, shadow resolution, polygon count, and all sorts of different graphical aspects to meet the 1080p 60fps benchmark. The main problem is that they prioritise those graphical aspects over resolution, which is pointless because those graphical aspects are wasted on a low resolution because the overall detail is reduced! They would get a better looking overall result if they reduced those aspects and used a higher render resolution, and I guess that's subjective, but I could get comparison screenshots to prove it.

          Last edited 13/11/13 3:24 pm

            I’m not going off developers statements for Dead Rising. Gameplay footage of it looks good, I know it runs at 720p and plenty of previews say it looks great and the amount of action is impressive.

            I really think you are overstating the difference the jump from 720p upscaled to 1080p makes. It’s not like the jump from standard def was to 720p and developers know it which is why you didn’t see developers dying to get to 1080p last generation and why you aren’t seeing them all prioritizing it now.

            It’s like getting from 15fps to 30fps is a massive deal, everybody thinks a game running at 15fps is running poorly but I think we agree that most people aren’t super fussed about the difference between 30fps and 60fps.
            I put 1080p upscaled and native 1080p in the same boat, it isn’t going to be apparent to most people particularly when a game is in motion (not a screenshot). Higher native resolution might matter a lot when you’re looking at screenshots on a PC monitor, it’s a lot less important when you’re watching TV a few meters away. I’m betting that most ordinary people can’t tell which version is better if you put the two COD games running next to each other, things like the way the hardware processes lighting and stuff like that will form the opinions of most people and that will be largely subjective.

            I think for that reason we will continue to see games which are having performance issues getting pushed back to upscaled 1080p, for exactly the same reason that we haven’t seen games with ‘absurdly low polycounts and texture resolutions’ in order to reach 60fps in previous generations – if the difference isn’t overtly apparent then developers will use the power for something that is. If the performance impact between upscaled 1080p and native 1080p is greater than actual visual impact, then it’s going to get shafted most of the time. I’d rather have 300 extra zombies in upscaled 1080p any day.

            Anyway, I think this is something people are talking about now while they’re being bored gamers spending too much time on the internet while they wait for their next gen consoles (I know I am). I can’t imagine it’s going to be a huge deal once people see the machines running next to each other. It’s just an easy and tangible point of benchmarking for two toys we don’t have our hands on yet.

              I really think you are overstating the difference the jump from 720p upscaled to 1080p makes.

              I am not. Maybe it's different for people on TVs. I play on a monitor, and it's blatantly obvious. When I can see individual pixels, the resolution is too low. It is as simple as that.

              It’s like getting from 15fps to 30fps is a massive deal, everybody thinks a game running at 15fps is running poorly but I think we agree that most people aren’t super fussed about the difference between 30fps and 60fps.

              Yes, because "most people" are a great source of informed, logical and accurate information, aren't they?

              1080p upscaled

              You mean 720p. There is no tangible difference between 720p and upscaled 1080p; it is a marketing term to make it sound less bad.

              Higher native resolution might matter a lot when you’re looking at screenshots on a PC monitor, it’s a lot less important when you’re watching TV a few meters away.

              A lot of people play video games on PC monitors connected to consoles. The difference is very evident in such a scenario.

              I’d rather have 300 extra zombies in upscaled 1080p any day.

              I don't see why you think that in order to increase resolution you need to sacrifice gameplay aspects? I already said that you could just reduce detail in a zillion other graphical variables to make it acceptable.


                I've read your posts and have come to the conclusion you know nothing about anything relating to graphical fidelity, component selection, integration and costing, development cycles and optimisation. Nothing about viewing distance's, the human eye or how your brain (if you have one) interprets imagery in any way shape or form. Finally what next generation is, in your world is more pixel related than detail related, yes that's right the two are inherently different. Detail is all about immersion into a gaming world, its the small things like a falling leaf or a gust of wind, you just want a pretty floor and avatar. Dumber than dumb.

    This doesn't surprise me one bit. I've always had this experience with multiplatform games, with the PS3 version being just that little bit jitterier (apparently that's a word!) compared to the 360 version.

    I don't know how many of you noticed, seeing as the plastic instrument fad is long gone, but Rock Band 3 was a big offender. It was a smooth experience on Xbox, but jittery as hell on Sony's console. The same could be said for Saints Row: The Third and GTA IV, actually (though that might have come about due to my little bros needing to get their fingernails on everything they see, including $100 games.)

    How is this news?

    I bet PS4 could run at a million frames if it was running at upscaled 480p!

    Stupid comparison.


Join the discussion!

Trending Stories Right Now