This would explain why Mad Max plays and runs better than JC3 (on consoles). But even in Mad Max the framerate can drop heavy under 20fps when 5 or 6 cars chasing you on the road at the same time. If it's the same engine then you probably have your culprit there.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NXGamer first look at XboxOne version of Just Cause 3 (hint: it's baaaaaad)
- Thread starter AgentOtaku
- Start date
This would explain why Mad Max plays and runs better than JC3 (on consoles). But even in Mad Max the framerate can drop heavy under 20fps when 5 or 6 cars chasing you on the road at the same time. If it's the same engine then you probably have your culprit there.
Could it just be that the servers aren't up and running (properly) yet?
http://gearnuke.com/just-cause-3-of...-times-ps4-comparison-online-mode-load-times/
http://gearnuke.com/just-cause-3-of...-times-ps4-comparison-online-mode-load-times/
Mad max on ps4 and it seems Xbox one was very solid game I played it for hours and hours on ps4 with only a few drops that were noticeable. This seems a straight up mess compared to mad max.
Ok, missed that.
If Square Enix are calculating physics in the cloud for every player then sure.
Otherwise, nah.
And server connection delay would probably be uniform. I don't see why it would scale up to 15 minutes.
MMaRsu
Banned
Be glad you didnt, since Im bummed I did.
If anyone wants my ps4 version im selling mine for 45.
NXGamer said that he had to put the console offline.
It really does look like a mess from all the reports I'm seeing. Yikes.
So that talk of a "big game running poorly" prior to the holiday season was probably talking about Fallout 4 - but they could also have meant Just Cause 3 since I think everyone expected poor things out of a Fallout. JC3, though? I actually thought it would run just fine on consoles.
So that talk of a "big game running poorly" prior to the holiday season was probably talking about Fallout 4 - but they could also have meant Just Cause 3 since I think everyone expected poor things out of a Fallout. JC3, though? I actually thought it would run just fine on consoles.
What the hell was the context of that tweet?! sounds like a bizarre thing to say, especially when it performs very badly on two platforms.
Wow I hope that's not real, not the attitude you should have towards thousands and thousands of customers.
Payday
The original game was cross-gen, if it hadn't been fine on the 360 something would definitely have been up!
Permanently A
Junior Member
That was Overkill.
It's such a shame because the game is really fun, it has some awesome moments. The technical issues are genuinely at a point where they damage the enjoyment to some degree. Game going in slow motion during big action, long load times just when retrying simple challenges etc.
I'm still enjoying it though, but it is frustrating.
I'm still enjoying it though, but it is frustrating.
Yeah, thanks, my mistake there, then. Both Swedish, I believe, I think that's where I made the error.
It depends on where exactly the memory is leaking, but I can easily imagine given the nature of Just Cause that leaks would exist in platform-independent code; there's going to be a lot of creation and destruction of entities, and that's where the problems can creep in.
The impact of memory leaks would vary per-platform, though.
Captain Bluey
Member
Anyone confirm if he was playing the patched version? Read something about a 2 gig launch patch. Might address some of the issues?
He said he was playing with the Day One patch
MMaRsu
Banned
Playing with the patch as well here.
It's less to do with scope and more about lack of attention when it comes to performance issues like memory leaks and consistent sub 30 FPS framerate.
For instance, Skyrom was bad on PS3 not because the scope of the game was too big for OS3 but because Bethesda couldn't get around making the game on PS3.
Possumowner
Member
Glad I purchased the PC version,damn.
dr_rus
Member
Yeah, well, it's not like we've had such an increase in CPU performance in console's power envelope that a hypothetical next gen console if it was to come out today would remedy the situation. So if you think about it - next gen SHOULD come quite a bit later, hoping that we'll get more potent CPUs which will fit the 200W limit in time.
If you look at games like Witcher 3, Infamous Second Son, Killzone and the upcoming Uncharted 4, I still feel the current generation of consoles can dish out amazing graphics and good performance. It's all about how you stay within the boundaries of what's possible as a developer.
Final Fantasy XV should also be a good example of what these consoles are capable of. And if the most recent car footage (native 1080p) captured on PS4 is any indication, we haven't hit the ceiling yet.
Final Fantasy XV should also be a good example of what these consoles are capable of. And if the most recent car footage (native 1080p) captured on PS4 is any indication, we haven't hit the ceiling yet.
Bits N Pieces
Member
Just thinking, if this is the results of the Xbox One version of JC3 where it drops lots of frames when there's lots going on and lots of explosions - then I'm really looking forward to seeing how Crackdown 3 fares 
Mad Season
Banned
How was none of this noticed in any of the gameplay videos with the devs?
Only PC gameplay was shown, the first look at console gameplay were these leaked streams and articles like this over the past few days. By all accounts the PC versions is fine.
Lanrutcon
Member
They were running on a beefy pc that makes current gen consoles look like toasters?
I'd argue that scope is related to the time you allocate to doing a task. If you don't have time to pay attention to that, your scope is too large.
Summer Haze
Banned
You'd think performance during shootouts and blowing shit up would have been prioritized...you know, seeing as that's the games entire draw. Completely unacceptable performance. I'll be passing on this in the hope that they patch it, but I won't hold my breath.
QuantumSquid
Member
This is how I feel. It seems there are steps you can take, such as installing the game on an external drive and setting your Xbox's power setting to Energy-saving instead of Instant-on, that will make the load times much better. I was watching SlasherJPC's stream last night and the load times seemed fine with the game being installed on a hybrid drive.
thelastword
Banned
Dropping Rez is not the ultimate answer for everything, it's only the cheapest and most hasslefree way to bring up perf. This game clearly shows the devs needed to be hassled in console optimization. In many cases it's not that the hardware is not enough, it's just that they don't make use of it properly.
He didn't just say it in the text of an article, he actually shows his assumptions in video form....."Didn't you watch the video where the game locks down and goes to 0fps"
The crazy thing is Amy, these consoles could be decked with overclocked i7's and 12GB GPU's and you would still get releases like this. Some devs have to realize that developing for PC and consoles are two different things, you have to spend time on the console versions to get them at acceptable levels.
Simply porting code over is not enough and it's the reason why we are getting such low presets in console games that could have been higher or framerates that could have been much smoother. The borderlands devs getting a 20+fps improvement via their patch to that package says a lot of how some games are shipped on consoles.
Weaker GPU's over what exactly? The consoles, could you link me where weaker GPU's over the consoles are running AK better?
It's also funny that when an open world game is properly done on consoles and PC gets the bad port, the devs are the worst, yet, some people never imagine such a thought when it's the console versions getting such treatment....especially when weaker GPU's runs said games much better over consoles...........
I agree totally. JC has awesome explosions, but the character models and it's IQ issues are really bad on consoles. It also has this stylized almost cartoony look with it's varied color palette and less realistic/detailed world objects.
That's like saying said game only falls to the teens for one second here and there, then it falls to the low 20's too and it's always around 24fps and below in any action scene. Is that fine to you? Of course when he is just running across an empty road with no NPC's, engaging no one it will be locked to 30fps and that tallies into the average framerate you're seeing in the stats, that does not mean that the game is 27fps through out.....
Even then, are our standards really depreciating, a 27fps average game is no where acceptable, it never was. It's just like Ryse which averaged around 25fps and people pretend that was fine. At what point is "Framerate is King" important, and at what point is it not?
Even in this thread, I've noticed some people saying they have been playing for a while and have no issues. It's similar to the Fallout 4 thread where some people were saying it's fine. The sales of that game surely did the talking though. I'm not sure Bethesda is even worried about it's performance issues tbh or will ever be.
Yet another case of devs underutilizing the hardware given and then we have a select bandwagon rushing in to say "these consoles are weak with their smartphone Cpu's".....
I'm not even convinced that it's a CPU issue tbh...looking at so many issues with crashes, frame locks, memory leaks, awful loadtimes. It's not even like the game is a looker on consoles outside of some nice explosions. Awful character models, jaggies galore, planes cars etc..look like plastic....
So lets forget that they're not making use of GPGPU, which is there for use for even better performance, they have a million issues to resolve, which they can, by just optimizing on the basic hardware profile sans async compute.
I've heard that they have patches underway or the game is not complete in it's current state, we'll see how it pans out. One thing is for sure, this should be the perfect game for GPGPU use, since it's heavy on physics. You would think that's the first thing the devs would prioritize knowing that their game is an open world game with lots of physics calculations or heavier CPU use.......
More and more, I'm thinking that many devs simply develop on PC and just port code over to consoles with not much care afterwards. Few thirdparty devs actually cater to the console hardware and try to use what it has or try to get as much performance for their games. Perhaps Alexandros has a point, just do any lacklustre port, these console guys can't tell the difference or won't care anyway, we will get the most sales from consoles with minimal effort......
It would appear that Rocksteady was the only dev to truly shine on consoles recently (I mean really set the bar) as they tried to make the most of the hardware developing the XB/PS4 version in-house and giving these platforms their due attention, it may also be the reason why the AK port was more difficult to transition properly over to PC. From what I'm seeing, there are a bevy of games that run at double the framerate on even entry level GPU's with better effects too and yet the console offering is substandard, even on the console with the better GPU.
Look at Witcher 3 on entry level PC's against the mess that it is with presets and load times on consoles. Some people will still convince themselves that the low preset game with awful loadtimes is now acceptable because the devs patched the game to 26-27fps average in the swamps 6 months later. JC3, Fallout4, Blops3 , I mean come on, yet JC3 is no different to the million other games like it on consoles with subpar framerates. It's also baffling when people say "oh this franchise is running better on average than last gen" by what? two frames? It's just sad that we continue to accept such efforts and deem them fine, when standards are suppose to continuously increase for the better.
Are people really trying to imply that an extra 2 or 3 frames on average for an AC game at a subpar resolution is all we envisioned over last gen for that franchise, and these consoles have so much more GPU power and much more RAM. Are all these games which run 60fps on account of the 750ti GPU with better effects and presets, do they only warrant 30fps on consoles with lowered effects, where they still fall below 30fps?
At first I thought PC to console development would makes things easier for devs, but it seems the easier you make it for the devs, they will want it even easier, not optimizing at all for consoles. Perhaps if it was a 16 core Cell CPU, they would have no choice and would have to learn how to get their games running at higher than 5fps after porting. I think since consoles form the biggest sales pie for the majority of these games, the PS4 should be the lead for the majority of multiplats, it's the only way these titles will be halfway decent in terms of presets and performance.
Yet there are open world games which runs at 60fps and those which average around 40fps in ISS/FL, and they have pretty good loadtimes. It's really up to the developer to plan what type of open world game they want to do and balance a proper resolution with effects/good loadtimes/good performance and the best presets they can muster with all of this.
At this point, all games should cater to 900p on the XB1 and 1080p on the PS4 and optimize till you get the best presets and a solid performance in kind.
Rough around the edges but perfectly playable for most people I'd say. Yes, I would like it to be better but this is not broken by any means. PC is where it is at if you are looking for image quality and framerate consistency (assuming the PC version is done well).
Hopefully the PS4 version runs better, as that is the one I might buy.
Hopefully the PS4 version runs better, as that is the one I might buy.
Audioboxer
Member
Memory leaks on the scale mentioned are pretty broken.
fluffydelusions
Member
The PC version looks fine from the streams I was watching on Twitch