Garrett 2U
Member
I don't expect miracles from Xbone's version but I can't take seriously anything this guy says. He acts like a child.
-
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.
Destructoid "Call of Duty Ghosts performs smoothly on Xbox One"
- Thread starter FordGTGuy
- Start date
As I'm not a industry person I havent seen either the Xbox One or PS4 versions but I have played on both a high end PC rig and PS3 and it is still sub par from a technical stand point so honestly this reflects poorly on IW and Activision far beyond anything it says about any platform this game is on.
That's definitely been confirmed.
Any specific tweets of his you're using to write him off despite the fact that he has played both versions, is a journalist and former IGN editor?
There have been multiple reports of people playing the entire campaign and not noticing frame rate dips...
Its funny because people act like current gen CoD games were locked at 60fps...when they were not even CLOSE to that
dragonelite
Member
wtf so confused first you hear they ported cod:ghost within 3 weeks and had it running at 90fps on ps4 and now its struggling IW you even trying...
Thing is...the people that complained about the frame rate seem to indicate it was just random times that the frame rate just hiccuped...I got the impression that it wasn't a constant fluctuation...just randomly hiccuped...
Then there were others saying it played fine...
My guess is that the numbers look a lot like current gen frame rates...
He constantly harasses Major Nelson, he's overtly hostile/snarky towards anything Microsoft, and his IGN credentials - as IGN DVD editor - are what...10 years old?
Why not bring up his ~3 years working at Sony?
Duxxy3
Member
Hopefully sledgehammer is building a game with an actual new engine, not a rehashed Q3A engine.
I think they are the only team with any experience with a more modern engine.
robertsan21
Member
They sure as shit have the money for it, seems like a wise move.
I kind of thought that's what the two team thing was supposed to result in, giving them two years to build their next game instead of having to rush out a yearly product. It sure hasn't seemed to result in that at all.
oh boy... there's that
Garrett 2U
Member
Thankfully Orca spared me the pain of having to go through his twitter feed.
Good enough for you nib?
Maybe he leaks good info occasionally, but he also spreads FUD and twists the story to paint Microsoft in a bad light whenever possible.
Hard to take such an obviously biased "journalist" seriously.
The problem is one team ignores what the other does in an attempt to keep them different (but still COD)... they should have 3 years ago dedicated a team to JUST build a new engine.
Instead they force their dev teams to take the same amount of time they have to make current gen games, which is 18ish months (minus bug testing, cert, manufacturing) to make a brand new game AND a brand new engine. That's not nearly enough time to do anything of significance.
...and I don't think Activision cares enough to change this. They've already got their next big cash cow lined up.
Pretty much all of his timeline? Sounds like a crazy fanboy.
That said, I think his info is good given his track record.
Brianimaniac
Banned
If this shit doesn't calm down after launch, I'm done with video game forums. It's exhausting.
robertsan21
Member
Its COD, we all have seen how ugly it is and how its not optimized, you can bet your house that the Xbox version will not be locked at 60 just like the PS4 version.
Garrett 2U
Member
Daffy Duck
Member
Is it now alright to base opinions of shoddy fps in games on a YouTube video and sine gifts of said video?
That gif is 30FPS because youtube doesn't support 60. If you see drop from 30 then you may be sure it was at ~20.
This game does not not look good enough to warrant such shit performance on any console or PC running a $1k card that can shred BF4 with 64 players.
Maybe if IW/Activision wasn't so busy pandering to the MS xbox division the entire generation they could have developed an actual next-gen worthy engine.
Pretty sure their MO was just to have it running well on 360 everything else be damned, get dudebro cash plus $10 for xbone upgrade and let Treyarch do the hard work for something next-gen in 2014.
Maybe if IW/Activision wasn't so busy pandering to the MS xbox division the entire generation they could have developed an actual next-gen worthy engine.
Pretty sure their MO was just to have it running well on 360 everything else be damned, get dudebro cash plus $10 for xbone upgrade and let Treyarch do the hard work for something next-gen in 2014.
Maybe you're letting your own viewpoints cloud things here? But his track record is great on this type of stuff, so there's no reason not to believe him.
I am amused about the Major Nelson thing though. What did he harass him over? Any links?
And your viewpoint doesn't cloud things? Go look at his twitter history yourself.
Yeah, the series has never been locked on consoles.
That said, in the end, it's looking like the Xbox 360 version might just offer the most stable framerate of the bunch. Considering how much time they've spent working on 360 it's not a huge surprise.
Miles Quaritch
Member
Another insider appears?
Chobel
Member
NinjamicWZ
Banned
lol @ those 720 jokes
Holy shit. I've read nothing on Ghosts. What the fuck happened?
Maninthemirror
Banned
Well the whole article is based off one single playthru for 10 minutes so thats not really fair to say its smooth from one map for 10 minutes
Whiteshirt
Member
Its what happens when you have Infinity Ward, who aren't even that technically good, to develops for like a billion different platforms. Even with outsourcing, its literally impossible to optimize all of these platforms properly.
Well, the Xbone/COD:Ghost footage here doesn't perform "smoothly".
You mean, just like the Xbone footage? (see link above)
I seriously hope this isn't what Orca meant by harassment...
It actually made me lol. Lol.
The game is stupidly CPU limited:
BLOPS never dropped from 120fps on my rig. What a disaster.
Wow, that sucks. It's even bad on PC even with the GeForce GTX 690 being the most powerful GPU on the market right now? Sheesh, WTF?
It just proves that IW is a shitty developer & that COD definitely needs a new game engine; Activision could surely afford it with all the money that they've been making off of these past COD games of theirs.
ChainsawFilms
Member
CoD games have always dipped below 60fps, always will. Especially multiplayer, you can't have a "solid 60fps" without limiting your engine in some capacity.
What would people prefer:
1) A solid 60fps that only uses 10% of the available resources 99.9% of the time, but has capacity to handle those rare occurences when there are 16 players on the same screen and lots of shit exploding?
Or
2) A stable 60fps 95% of the time that can drop quite significantly when Shit Gets Real?
Expecting 60fps throughout a multiplayer FPS is unrealistic, you'd be dialing back a lot of the hardware most of the time. Easier to get 60fps on a multiplayer racing game as it's more "controllable" and there aren't as many "potential scenarios". If you know what I mean.
Sure I'd love 60fps solid, but it doesn't happen. PC benchmarks, people usually quote Average, and I don't see why Next Gen should be any differently. This goes for CoD (which I'm not defending BTW, I distinctly dislike what the series has become), BF4, KillZone, etc.
Not saying this particular game isn't an "unoptimised mess", just wanted to comment on unrealistic Solid 60fps expectations for titles pushing the graphical envelope.
What would people prefer:
1) A solid 60fps that only uses 10% of the available resources 99.9% of the time, but has capacity to handle those rare occurences when there are 16 players on the same screen and lots of shit exploding?
Or
2) A stable 60fps 95% of the time that can drop quite significantly when Shit Gets Real?
Expecting 60fps throughout a multiplayer FPS is unrealistic, you'd be dialing back a lot of the hardware most of the time. Easier to get 60fps on a multiplayer racing game as it's more "controllable" and there aren't as many "potential scenarios". If you know what I mean.
Sure I'd love 60fps solid, but it doesn't happen. PC benchmarks, people usually quote Average, and I don't see why Next Gen should be any differently. This goes for CoD (which I'm not defending BTW, I distinctly dislike what the series has become), BF4, KillZone, etc.
Not saying this particular game isn't an "unoptimised mess", just wanted to comment on unrealistic Solid 60fps expectations for titles pushing the graphical envelope.
absolutely not...but none of the CoD console games have been locked at 60fps...that will not change here
Which is why interest in the thread is big - PC rigs with top end graphics cards aren't getting 'solid 60fps' so this sounds like horseshit
NemesisPrime
Banned
Best version X1 confirmed.
ThoughtsOfSpeaking
Banned
There is a strong smell of FUD here.
While I think Leadbetter does quite a bit of spinning for Microsoft, he still acknowledges issues. I still prefer him to Thomas Morgan who always a little too generous to ps3 ports.
Liamario
Banned
Was thinking the exact same thing. Games journalists have proven to me time and time again that I know more about games than they do.
Really not sure what to believe anymore in regards to COD: Ghosts.
The game isn't running well on the PC... so I tend to believe that there will be issues across all platforms.
Not sure why gaming journalists are picking and choosing sides without a thorough analysis of the two next gen consoles. Which they really can't do until they are able to play the game without the information embargo in place.
The game isn't running well on the PC... so I tend to believe that there will be issues across all platforms.
Not sure why gaming journalists are picking and choosing sides without a thorough analysis of the two next gen consoles. Which they really can't do until they are able to play the game without the information embargo in place.