Reviewers Are Reporting Frame Rate Problems With 'Call Of Duty: Ghosts' On PS4


Recommended Posts

http://www.forbes.com/sites/davidthier/2013/11/05/reviewers-are-reporting-frame-rate-problems-with-call-of-duty-ghosts-on-ps4/

Call of Duty: Ghosts is the latest iteration in one of the most popular game franchises in the world, so it?s only fitting that Activision?s shooter has become the center of a big discussion of how Microsoft's MSFT +1.94% Xbox One stacks up to Sony's SNE -1.35% PS4. The PS4 version runs at a native 1080p, and the Xbox One version runs at 720p upsacled to 1080, which may point to real differences in the power of these two consoles.

Polygon: ?Much has been said about the fact that the PlayStation 4 version of the game runs at a native 1080p, and while that may be true, the game did struggle to maintain a steady frame rate, especially in hectic multiplayer matches. The PS3 version of the game ran into similar problems, whereas the Xbox 360 version maintained a steady 60 frames per second.?

IGN: ?On the current-gen versions Ghosts looks nearly identical, though I did encounter occasional framerate issues during the single-player campaign on PS3 and PS4.?

Joystiq: ?A key pillar of the Call of Duty experience has always been rock-solid 60 frames per seconds gameplay. On Xbox 360, Ghosts maintains this mandate. The PlayStation 4 version, however, has noticeable technical issues, sometimes slowing to a crawl, particularly during set-piece moments with multiple effects. One specific moment I was able to replicate multiple times on PS4 was a campaign scene that ran smoothly on Xbox 360 and PS3, while the game chugged On PlayStation 4. These frame rate hitches happen throughout the campaign on PS4 and, in a series known for its Hollywood-inspired bombast, it detracted from the experience.?

Just to make sure, are these reviewers playing a final copy of COD on a retail console?

Maybe its an issue that can be patched day one when the console is released.

Still, its not the next gen first impressions anyone would want to have.

  • Like 1

There's no NDA under effect ? i'm surprised.

 

There's an NDA on the X1, which is why there's no review.

 

EDGE is saying that there are drops at checkpoints, but never in gunplay.

 

I won't bring up the interview with the IW dev.

There's an NDA on the X1, which is why there's no review.

 

EDGE is saying that there are drops at checkpoints, but never in gunplay.

 

I won't bring up the interview with the IW dev.

Here's what Gamespot has to say about the PS4 version in their official review.

 

Ghosts is even more impressive on the next-gen hardware of the PlayStation 4. While the current-gen versions are just as competent as ever, rendering the chaotic shootouts at a smooth 60 frames per second, the PS4's next-gen artistry creates a much more immersive battleground. Those effects are most noticeable in the levels that emphasize lighting: the soft bokeh effects of floating embers on a burning oil refinery, or the way moonlight refracts and ripples while underwater. It's essentially the difference between a PC game running on high versus low settings. Each version is functionally the same, but all those extra effects add up to a more engrossing experience. (Note: Our review of the Xbox One version remains under embargo until a later date. Activision did not provide access to the PC and Wii U versions.)

http://www.gamespot.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts-review/1900-6415523/

From Giant Bomb review

The PlayStation 4 version of the game looks very sharp and feels very effects-laden, with a lot of good-looking lighting and reflections. It has a long draw distance, while the current consoles occasionally fog things up a bit to reduce the amount of geometry on-screen at a given time. The campaign has an early moment where you come up and see the state of the world by looking at a shot of the Hollywood Sign, which is way off in the distance.

[...]

Additionally, the PlayStation 4 version has a handful of noticeable dips in its frame rate. This usually seemed to happen when a lot of smoke or other effects were on-screen, but occasionally it occurred in multiplayer for reasons I couldn't even guess at. Judging graphics on a brand-new platform can be tough, since we don't have a lot to compare it with at this point, but I will say that I had hoped that it would look a little better across the board. Whether that says more about my expectations or the quality of the game will have to wait until we see more next-generation games in action.

http://www.giantbomb.com/reviews/call-of-duty-ghosts-review/1900-603/

From what I'm seeing the pc version has some pretty serious issues as well. I don't think it's exactly a problem with the PS4. Seems to just be an overall poorly optimized game. Who'd have thought..

 

And a 40gb install..what were they thinking with that.

  • Like 1

The issue seems to be less with the console, more with the fact that the game isn't very good.

And a 40gb install..what were they thinking with that.

 

I've been wondering how they've managed to bloat CoD up to that kind of size when a game like CoD has no business being that big.

From what I'm seeing the pc version has some pretty serious issues as well. I don't think it's exactly a problem with the PS4. Seems to just be an overall poorly optimized game. Who'd have thought..

 

And a 40gb install..what were they thinking with that.

40GB?

 

And I thought BF3 + all extra maps was big.

 

What the heck have they put into the game? Super-amazing dog and fish textures?  

I've been wondering how they've managed to bloat CoD up to that kind of size when a game like CoD has no business being that big.

 

My working theory is 75% of it is fluff stuffed in there to deter piracy. Who in their right mind is going to download a game that requires 40gb? It sure as hell isn't textures because the textures look like they belong in a 5 year old game.

I've seen a lot of youtube reviews of this game on pc and people seem to really be panning it from many angles. Some are bored with the gameplay, some are turned off by the low res textures, etc, etc.

Most seem to agree that BF4 is the more visually demanding (i.e. higher quality) game easily.

If that is true, it might explain why neither the PS4 or X1 could hit 1080p/60 for BF4.

My working theory is 75% of it is fluff stuffed in there to deter piracy. Who in their right mind is going to download a game that requires 40gb? It sure as hell isn't textures because the textures look like they belong in a 5 year old game.

 

40gb won't deter piracy

 

I've seen a lot of youtube reviews of this game on pc and people seem to really be panning it from many angles. Some are bored with the gameplay, some are turned off by the low res textures, etc, etc.

Most seem to agree that BF4 is the more visually demanding (i.e. higher quality) game easily.

If that is true, it might explain why neither the PS4 or X1 could hit 1080p/60 for BF4.

 

For that matter, a lot of PC's are struggling 1080p/60 for BF4 high settings

 

In order to achieve an average frame rate above 60 fps you need an I7 4770 and a Geforce 770 at an estimated cost of 700 bucks for CPU +  GPU alone.. 

40gb won't deter piracy

 

 

For that matter, a lot of PC's are struggling 1080p/60 for BF4 high settings

 

In order to achieve an average frame rate above 60 fps you need an I7 4770 and a Geforce 770 at an estimated cost of 700 bucks for CPU +  GPU alone.. 

 

I'm aware of that. But considering devs and publishers keep insisting on all kinds of stupid DRM that never works I'm sure bloating up the download size of the game to deter people from pirating is something that has been discussed at one point in time or another.

 

Though I honestly don't think that's what's going on with this game I still wonder what is included in that 40gb. Much better looking games have had smaller install requirements by a large margine so it can't be textures or meshes.

 

Though I honestly don't think that's what's going on with this game I still wonder what is included in that 40gb. Much better looking games have had smaller install requirements by a large margine so it can't be textures or meshes.

 

 

yeah, no idea why its as large as it is for how mediocre it looks compared to other games with much smaller installs

Curious though if the mantle support coming in a later patch is going to be pushed to X1 / PS4 as well

 

http://www.tomshardware.com/news/amd-mantle-api-xbox-one-directx-11.2,24691.html

 

Nope.  

I'm aware of that. But considering devs and publishers keep insisting on all kinds of stupid DRM that never works I'm sure bloating up the download size of the game to deter people from pirating is something that has been discussed at one point in time or another.

 

Though I honestly don't think that's what's going on with this game I still wonder what is included in that 40gb. Much better looking games have had smaller install requirements by a large margine so it can't be textures or meshes.

 

Probably just lack of compression. The developer now has blu-ray and hard drives on all the next gen consoles. So they don't really need to invest in compressing textures, audio etc.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Yup, that's a doozy right there 😄
    • It's a bundle of tools created by a variety of people, so things can go wrong sometimes. It's a great addition to Windows, and I use a lot of the tools on a daily basis. Also, it's still a 0.**** release so quick updates are to be expected 😉
    • Oh, I did. And it's even worse than I was hoping! Besides a lot of techno-babble jargon (yes I understand 100% of it but it's still all just techno-babble) there's 2 key points that make me super-weary about even considering testing this out. -- By default, after installation, a relay is automatically set up, so you do not need to care about that. * Non-chatmail apps use email servers as a long-term message archive while chatmail clients use email servers for ephemeral instant message relay. * Supporting the full variety of classic email setups would require considerable development and maintenance efforts, and complicate making chatmail-based messaging more resilient, reliable and fast. -- Basically, the end-user device is the 'server' (relay) so there is NO ARCHIVING whatsoever because every message is necessarily ephemeral. Great for techno-paranoia (and for illicit activities preferring no tracks to cover) but terrible for everybody else. It's also ironically contradictory to engineering principles of redundancies besides the transport layers due to the explicit absence of any persistent storage. Instead of 'classic email address' retaining multi-GB messaging archives on its server, now every device must retain 100% of those storage demands. (Email messages were originally meant to be short correspondences, not the multi-MB attachments boondoggle that now exists with unlimited spam engines flooding every potential recipient.) Any device swap or reset (or loss) makes the entire message history go bye-bye forever... lest there's an off-device auto-archival "relay" mechanism that's really a separate server that holds onto all transported messages (an email server) that utilizes 'chatmail email address' identities (like an email server) and its own persistent storage archive (like an email server). But... this solution is hoping to exist alongside real-world email address identities (based on the email server relay pathway) but simply render messages in chat thread format in an ephemeral manner (with contents being encrypted, and messages auto-expiring) ... In the end, it's a chat app/experience for the Web3/P2P-at-all-costs zealots. (I have accts on all sorts of federated web3 services so I understand the technical and non-technical alike.) For any practical users, however, it's just another service to download/install, register, cross-share id cards/qr codes, but know that there's no history/archive whatsoever (by design) so no account/message recovery whatsoever... update the device, install a bummed update patch, or dare upgrade your device... all history, poof, gone. Ya gotta start everything over again like they're a brand new person.
    • You've tried DuckDuckGo and Brave Search, now get serious with SearXNG by Paul Hill Over the last decade, it has become quite trendy to dump Google Search in favor of privacy-preserving alternatives such as DuckDuckGo, Startpage, and Brave Search. These search engines have done a very good job at highlighting dodgy practices by Google, such as adjusting search results based on what it thinks you’ll like (filter bubble) and stalking you around the web to advertise to you. While these search engines are good starting points when compared to non-private services like Google, there are still quite a few issues with them. For example, both DuckDuckGo and Brave Search require running non-free JavaScript in your web browser, which is comparable to running proprietary software on your computer, meaning you can be sure about what it’s actually doing in the background. Another issue is that these search engines are hosted on the respective companies’ servers, and you are using a service that you don’t control. Finally, DuckDuckGo, while offering privacy features, relies heavily on Microsoft’s infrastructure for its results and, in the past, has permitted Microsoft tracking scripts. If you are looking for a more private search solution than DuckDuckGo, Brave Search, and Startpage, then I recommend taking a look at SearXNG. It is a privacy-respecting metasearch engine that can be used via different public instances, which is useful for mobile users, or you can install it on your computer or server and run it locally with maximum control. Unlike Google, Bing, or Brave Search, which crawl the web and have their own search indexes, SearXNG is a metasearch engine, meaning it taps other search engines, stripping your identifying data, such as IP address, user agent, and cookies, in the process. Your search query is sent to the other search engines you enable before aggregating the results. SearXNG has deployment flexibility. If you are a casual user or a mobile user and don’t want to run SearXNG locally, you can use a public instance that is hosted by someone else. The main problem with this is that you are putting trust in the maintainer of the instance regarding stuff like logs that they may keep; good hosts should have a privacy policy explaining their policies. If you are trying to use SearXNG, you can also install the software on your device and then head to 127.0.0.1:8080 in your browser and search from there. While you don’t have to worry about a third-party admin like the public instances, search engines could ultimately block your IP address if they frown on you pulling in their search results locally. If you want to run it locally, it’s a good idea to use proxies or VPNs to hide your actual IP. You don’t have to worry about this with a public instance, as search engines never see your IP address. The main privacy benefit of using SearXNG is that it isolates your identity from the underlying engines that it’s capable of searching, such as Google and Bing. These search engines will only see requests coming from a generic server, so they can’t profile you and create a bubble filter that influences what results you see. This also ensures that your search engine doesn’t turn into an echo chamber that prevents you from reading alternative points of view. As a free software project, you are allowed to inspect SearXNG to make sure there are no negative features bundled inside. This sets it apart from the privacy search engines mentioned earlier because you can’t check their source code. As a meta search engine, you are not restricted to getting results from one source. Due to the fact that it scrapes content from other websites, your SearXNG instance will periodically get blocked from different providers, so it’s good to select a range of sources as a backup. While enabling all of the services will give you great results, this can make searching slower. I am personally happy with slower searches for the best results, but you can always check which providers are slowing down your search from the search results page and disable them to speed things up. If you want decent results quickly, enable the main search providers such as Google, Brave, DuckDuckGo, Qwant, Bing, and Yahoo. This way, you get wide coverage without the latency. On the Engines tab in Preferences, do note that there are different tabs, such as General, Images, and Videos, with their own providers that can be toggled and are not covered by "Enable all" while on the General tab, so be sure to dig into each. Just a note, if you want to enable everything, press "Enable all" in one tab, then hit save at the bottom of the page, then do the next tab, and so on. If you press "Enable all", then do that in each tab, and then save, nothing will stick. When I had just some of the search engines enabled, I searched “define nefarious” and results came back with the definition of “define” - obviously that was a sucky result. However, when I had everything enabled, it found dictionary pages for the word “nefarious” and even had an inline definition on the sidebar, which is quite nice too - that was delivered by WolframAlpha for anyone wondering! Probably the worst thing about this meta search engine is that the engines you select are saved with a cookie, so you must enable them on every new device you use SearXNG on, including if you decide to go into incognito mode with your web browser. Honestly, I would say this is the most annoying aspect, and perhaps if your browser lets you choose a separate private browsing search engine, then it would be best to use DuckDuckGo for this portion of your browsing. Another weakness of SearXNG is the random blocking of it by search providers. When you are on the results page, expand the “Response time” box, and it will show things like “Suspended: too many requests” or “access denied”. This is why it is good to enable several providers so that there is always a fallback to get results from. I won’t pretend SearXNG will be for everyone, however, if you enable all of the providers and put up with the slower response time, the results can be really amazing. Even if you don’t want to use it as your daily driver, keeping a bookmark handy that links to it is a good idea if you ever feel like doing a deep dive into a niche topic where other search engines are just failing to bring up any good result, due to the amount of sources it looks on. If you’re interested in radical user control over the software you use, installing SearXNG locally can also be a good idea, but be prepared to be temporarily blocked from sites if you trigger bot sensors without a VPN. Personally, I’ve opted to use a public instance, rather than install it myself. If you want to use it via a public instance, head over to searx.space to find a provider. Let us know in the comments if you have used SearXNG or its predecessor, Searx. What do you think about the quality of the results?
    • Dear Neowin, If it is not too much trouble, can you start using the new-ish designations for Insider Preview? "Experimental" is different than "former Dev" as it can apply to different models, eg 26H1 or 26H2 etc, right? No need to seed confusion IMHO. And, please "finally" update your graphics. OK?
  • Recent Achievements

    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Month Later
      Woland13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Woland13 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      bernmeister earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      503
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      226
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      158
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      75
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      71
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!