-
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.
-
We have made minor adjustments to how the search bar works on ResetEra. You can read about the changes here.
Far Cry 3 Classic Edition: PS4 vs Xbox One vs PS4 Pro vs Xbox One X - Frame Rate Comparison
- Thread starter Theorry
- Start date
How did they managed such bad performances?
The game runs like an ass, and 1440p for a last gen remaster is shameful.
The game runs like an ass, and 1440p for a last gen remaster is shameful.
Isn't this technically early access or something? I think that's how it was described in the season pass.
Looks pretty lacklustre to me. I'm not sure if they based it off the last gen console versionsv but it definately looks worse than the PC version, from what I remember.
Edit: I could be overstating this - FC3 was a looker at the time though.
Last edited:
What an embarrassing port.
This game was running on the 360, this isn't a CPU bottleneck.
I'd be surprised if current console CPUs could run even FC2 at 60FPS. FC3 already looked like garbage and ran at sub-20FPS on the 360 and PS3.
Yeah, it was running on the 360 at like 20-25 fps and much lower graphics.
Holy shit, this actually is enhanced? It looked like it wasn't even reaching 1080p in spots. I'm shocked.
Embarrassingly bad port. Shame on Ubisoft for this cash grab.
Had potential to be the best version of a fantastic game....
Had potential to be the best version of a fantastic game....
Far Cry 5 hit a native 4K with a locked 30 FPS on the X and this only manages 1440p with an inconsistent framerate.
Let's not get mixed up here, this really is a bad port.
Let's not get mixed up here, this really is a bad port.
Isn't the XBOX-X version of FC5 damn-near locked at 30fps @ 1080p and 4K?
What possible excuse could they have for this port?
What possible excuse could they have for this port?
You ever look how FC3 ran on last gen?
CPU is absolutely a bottleneck.
To put it in perspective, PC Ryzen CPUs struggle to reach 60 fps on the second island on this game.
Not surprising.
FC3 was basically a PC exclusive that happened to have a console version. It was by far the biggest gulf of that generation between console performance/graphics and PC perf/gfx of a big name AAA release.
When Sony said they were afraid of the PC gaming market eating their breakfast on the enthusiat end is the reason they did the pro, Far Cry 3 is basically why.
FC3 was basically a PC exclusive that happened to have a console version. It was by far the biggest gulf of that generation between console performance/graphics and PC perf/gfx of a big name AAA release.
When Sony said they were afraid of the PC gaming market eating their breakfast on the enthusiat end is the reason they did the pro, Far Cry 3 is basically why.
FC3 wasn't exactly the smoothest on PC either. Porting this over was bound to preserve some "features".
Oh yeah it mauled my 5870/i7 960 back in the day. One of the biggest reasons I finally upgraded lol
Nah, it looks rough sometimes because it has no AA and even 1440p super sampling doesn't fix that and it shimmers like crazy on cables and stuff, but what you said is bollocks.
It's clean as a whistle.
First of all, last-gen consoles had relatively powerful CPUs, whereas this gen they're extremely weak. Emphasis was placed on RAM and GPU upgrades rather than the CPU with the assumptions developers would utilize a lot of GPU compute to make up for it. That doesn't bode well for ports of last-gen titles, especially open world games that need a lot of CPU power in the first place.
Second, FC3 wasn't particularly well-optimized on PC either. You're not getting 60 FPS for the same reason you're not getting it with GTAV.
With the Far Cry 5 season pass way before launch. It just dropped two days ago seemingly out of nowhere as far as I know, but we knew it was coming generally.
This, but it actually happened with a lot of games between 2011 and 2013: Far Cry 3, Crysis 2, Crysis 3, Witcher 2, Battlefield 3, Medal of Honor Warfighter. Basically, around 2011 a lot of developers left consoles behind but the new consoles weren't ready yet so they started optimizing for PC first and consoles 2nd. That's how you got situations like Crysis 3 where the console version was actually below the minimum PC graphics settings.
Good to know. I don't have much interest in Far Cry 5 but wanted this as I enjoyed it a lot on the PS3. Disappointing to here.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Yeah I'm on Xbox One X and I've had 8 crashes so far. And I hear PS4 players have a dead zone bug with their controls that makes the game feel horrible.
PS4 Pro and even mores o the Xbox One X should have amazing versions of this game. Such a shame.
To those who are saying why is this like this when FC5 is 4K/30FPS on X. It's several things:
1) FC5 and its tech were built around current gen consoles and the engine has been refined since FC3.
2) FC3 was actually more simulation heavy than FC5, not nearly as much as FC2 but it's no secret that the design direction of FC games have strayed further and further away from simulation since FC2 days.
3) FC3 was built for last gen consoles/PCs architecture from that time and it ran terribly on consoles, bringing that game to newer console and making it run the same as the newest most modern game in the franchise is an unrealistic expectation really.
4) The remaster was never going to be 60FPS, especially for an open world game. Console CPUs last gen weren't that much behind than the ones in current gen consoles, in some ways it can be argued they were even faster (though I donno how it translates to real world performance).
5) The remaster obviously does not have nowhere near the same budget as FC5.
1) FC5 and its tech were built around current gen consoles and the engine has been refined since FC3.
2) FC3 was actually more simulation heavy than FC5, not nearly as much as FC2 but it's no secret that the design direction of FC games have strayed further and further away from simulation since FC2 days.
3) FC3 was built for last gen consoles/PCs architecture from that time and it ran terribly on consoles, bringing that game to newer console and making it run the same as the newest most modern game in the franchise is an unrealistic expectation really.
4) The remaster was never going to be 60FPS, especially for an open world game. Console CPUs last gen weren't that much behind than the ones in current gen consoles, in some ways it can be argued they were even faster (though I donno how it translates to real world performance).
5) The remaster obviously does not have nowhere near the same budget as FC5.
Last edited:
Nah, it looks rough sometimes because it has no AA and even 1440p super sampling doesn't fix that and it shimmers like crazy on cables and stuff, but what you said is bollocks.
It's clean as a whistle.
Looks great, thanks.
Seems the X version is causing the most issues.
As the devs are looking into the dead zone thing with the sticks I'd say it's worth waiting a little while to see if it gets patched.
And Crysis 3 looked hella good on those consoles. Its one of those rare late-gen DX11 downports that actually ended up looking decent. COD: AW is another one, but whilst it looks quite bad compared to current-gen, it performs well (on X360 that is).
That being said, FC3, but more FC4, are quite miracles on last-gen. Its amazing that such a game even runs on these consoles. They did a great write up on optimizing Far Cry 4 for last-gen: http://twvideo01.ubm-us.net/o1/vault/gdc2015/presentations/McAuley_Stephen_Rendering_the_World.pdf (I believe it was this one)
I'm getting so tired of these stupid post
This game came out in 2012 and ran poorly on a fraction of the power of the current consoles.
Hrm... your post is uninformed. Where do you think those fractions are?
CPU power in current consoles is not magnitudes higher (if at all in some areas) unlike the GPU and RAM increase. Nooblet posted that above rather well. This lack of CPU power is documented to this point to extreme levels: we know jaguar is not powerful, we know it is not even very powerful if you compare it to cell and xenon. FC3 has trouble reaching 60 on PC on Ryzen chips. Jaguar does not stand a chance.
User Warned: “Lazy Dev” Rhetoric
Yup. Metro Last Light hit 1080p60 on base consoles 4 years ago, this is just lazy Ubi plain and simple
My point was that the game was always incredibly flawed from a technical standpoint especially on the older systems not that it should run better.