-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Digital Foundry Control Console Analysis: A Brilliant Game But What's Up With Performance?
- Thread starter chandoog
- Start date
if it's not locked, you think it just shouldn't be released on the platform?
Awful, I would be furious if I spent full price for a game with such terrible performance issues. I called it though, Quantum Break is one of the worst experiences I've had on PC performance wise and I fully expected Control to suffer the same fate and it does. Hopefully they can fix it fast.
This game looks great, I won't get it since I only have a base PS4 and a gamin laptop...
I hope they improve the performance so I can play it one day.
I hope they improve the performance so I can play it one day.
It absolutely does not. I've tested on two different Xbox One Xs with SSD external and internal drives and it drops to the mid teens in framerate constantly. I had to give up because at one point in chapter 6 I keep dying because I can't move out of the way of projectiles because it basically stops responding. Stop peddling this BS.
That sucks. I'm about two hours in and besides a few quick hitches and odd stutter when unpausing, it's been pretty solid on X. I guess later areas will be worse.
I mean then don't develop it for platforms you don't care to optimize for? I love Remedy, but I'm not going to sit here and say that this is acceptable. The game should run the best it can on consoles. They are fixed platforms. You know exactly what each one can and cannot handle. It's not like they didn't know it had issues either.
I wonder if, as they mentioned in the video, the frame rate dips are related to the game maxing the allocated memory, and the X1X version is so far ahead because of how much more RAM it has?
Well, i'm with DF on this, besides some dips in certain areas, it's fine. Sucks on your end.
Yeah imma need that patch first please...
And people coppin' pleas for how far we are in the gen cycle are bananas.
And people coppin' pleas for how far we are in the gen cycle are bananas.
No, a console is a set hardware. A completely different thing than varying computer specs.
I've just noticed something strange in the PS Store description for Control. It says "Compatible with PlayStation 4". I made a ton of different searches (US PS Store) and couldn't find another game with the same phrase or a similar one. Check it out, it's weird.
Maybe it means absolutely nothing. Or perhaps it's indeed a truly next-gen game which also barely runs on the PS4! (half-joking?, idk).
Maybe it means absolutely nothing. Or perhaps it's indeed a truly next-gen game which also barely runs on the PS4! (half-joking?, idk).
Last of Us 2 will run better and look better than this game.
That's my expectation.
And the circumstances are totally similar. Great comparison, very astute.
K
Sorry. Expection too high for remedy to release a playable game? Guess so.
the Last of Us 2 will be very beautiful but with a fairly static world that won't approach the level of interactivity found in Control.
That's my expectation.
Even if they waited a year they would still release it for base current gen consoles. Most devs wont be able to afford targeting just next gen users.
This is ERA bubble talk. Most consumers won't mind the frame drops if the game is good.
11 frames per second isn't just a drop. It's unplayable.
The expectation is that you not make enormously stupid comparisons.
Outline why I cant compare 2 third person shooters. I'll laugh if one of them is 'give them a break theyre releasing on 4 different platforms and they dont know the hardware'
Late gen games tend to run rather poorly on console usually - same as last gen. I still think those Drops though are too much and they should dial back as much as possible to make it run better on base machines. Maybe though their Design brief makes that impossible. Not every game Design can run well on consoles this old and with these CPUs and mem Set up (yes, less than 8 GB is a very small amount of usable RAM in 2019).
This game is heavy with very good reason on every Plattform right now - it is graphically at least completely top Tier, doing things in an intense high quality way. Even without ray tracing.
This game is heavy with very good reason on every Plattform right now - it is graphically at least completely top Tier, doing things in an intense high quality way. Even without ray tracing.
I'll be waiting for some updates I think before playing this on PS4 Pro. Normally chat about egregious frame rates on Era is pure Era bubble but in this case poking around the internet and watching the DF stuff I might wait a bit.
The idea that the problem is about hardware, instead of about developers failing on a fundamental level of their craft, does not sound convincing to me. When your game has a 1+ second load time between a paused and non-paused state on most running platforms, then, yeah, maybe you are not doing a good optimization job.
This whole nonsensical thing of "oh their vision is so radical and powerful that no known platform is currently able to implement it" is just ridiculous. Player experience should be the number one priority here.
This whole nonsensical thing of "oh their vision is so radical and powerful that no known platform is currently able to implement it" is just ridiculous. Player experience should be the number one priority here.
I don't know, as bad as my laptop runs this, seems like I dodged a bullet getting it on pc. This game needs optimization in every single platform, it's absurd that you need the top tier just to make it stable.
While the image quality and frame rate will be solid, I dont think last of us 2 will be doing anywhere near the kind of effects and physics that control is.
To be fair, the Jaguar CPUs used in current-gen consoles are unequivocally, incontrovertibly awful. AMD's Jaguar/Puma line isn't in any way, shape, or form designed for gaming; it's intended for low-power personal devices like tablets and budget laptops, and unfortunately for MS, Sony, and game developers in general, it was the best SoC-level CPU AMD had to offer at the time.
Last edited:
Always happens near end of gen. It is what it is. Make sure to look at performance before you buy folks.
Dips is an understatement, it straight halves at certain points. That's unacceptable.
it actually baffles me that john concluded the video with "its mostly fine", considering the very footage he shows and even says"maybe id consider not playing the game on base consoles until its patched" sustained drops to 10-15 fps.
It's not "some dips". Base ps4 and xb1 is fucking atrocious.
i don't think the people defending this watched the video or read the article
the frame drops for base consoles are damn near unplayable
stop being obtuse, no one is asking for perfect fps (although it'll be good sure) but what we have for base console is bad
they could have either optimized more or dial back some features
everyone knows the hardware, no one's got huge expectations from it. how the hell don't you work with that in mind?
the frame drops for base consoles are damn near unplayable
stop being obtuse, no one is asking for perfect fps (although it'll be good sure) but what we have for base console is bad
they could have either optimized more or dial back some features
everyone knows the hardware, no one's got huge expectations from it. how the hell don't you work with that in mind?
Yeah DF can be strange in their wordings. Critics have been weird too. "Performance issues". 9/10, 8/10. Almost every firefight in Control leads to same kinds of effects and destruction. Media needs to be harsh to make a statement that this is unacceptable.
A single platform exclusive that has all the time and money they need that's gonna be released next year is gonna look better than a multi platform release from this year ? I would have never imagined such thing like that
Hard pass then, it's becoming a more frequent occurrence that new games just run like ass on OG consoles and I don't like it.
You can compare them as much as you can compare Fortnite and Control. But to answer your question, both games have completely different philosophy to game design and how the engine needs to support that. The Last of Us 2 is not a transforming metroidvania world filled with reflective surfaces and illuminated by indoor spot lights and with tons of interactable objects having accurate physics applied to them.
for real. go back and look at MGS2 running on a PS2 and it still looks decent because it runs at 60 and has a clean visual style.
This is just... I'm honestly pretty shocked a game released in this state.
But that doesn't mean it does the same computationally under the hood. Odd comparison.
Well, yeah? I mean, Naughty Dog are going to be using every piece of the PS4's bare metal to optimise their engine while this is a multiplatform game. So not a great comparison buddy.
true, but the performance mostly tanks when there's a cross gen version of a game. Like Middle Earth Shadow of Mordor which ran horrid on PS3 when compared with PS4. Exclusives on PS3 ran like a gem even during it's last legs despite having a complex architecture. PS4 and xbox One with PC like setup internally would help developers to prioritize things better to get a smoother experience, no?
Bad optimization will bring down the strongest CPU. Jaguar cores or not. Doesn't really matter. At least next gen will be able to brute force such games for a while, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.
This isn't a case of downporting to weaker hardware. Remedy knew their target specs before they even wrote the first line of code.
While I personally didn't have a problem with it, there were a lot of complaints about Last of Us on PS3's framerate. In that case I was perfectly happy with the compromises Naughty Dog made to deliver the game they wanted to make.
No system is immune and sometimes it's just a lead designer or director saying "I don't care about the framerate, just give me 20 enemies on screen". Then the tech guys and artists have to make it work as well as they can.
Oh, I'm not saying poor optimisation isn't a concern on higher-end systems, just that a console version of a game hitting a CPU bottleneck isn't necessarily due to that as the target processor is so decidedly low-end.
You're not wrong, but just to be clear, the issue in this case isn't the CPU; even the FX 4300, a seven-year-old quad-core AMD CPU, can manage ~60fps when paired with a high-end GPU.
Last edited: