Top
630°

Wolfenstein dev: we hit 1080p, 60fps on Xbox One by having an engine built to scale

MachineGames, developer of Wolfenstein: The New Order, has suggested that the architectural differences between the Xbox One and PS4 are closer than people might think, and by using an engine built to scale, the team was able to hit 1060, 60fps on both consoles.

Andreas Ojerfors, senior gameplay designer on The New Order, told TechRadar that developing across the new platforms was actually easier than it was on the last generation.

Read Full Story >>
techradar.com
The story is too old to be commented.
GamerzElite1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

What abt PC version? Unable to play on High setting with AMD cards. Even medium 1080p has sutterring and low frame rate issue. Right now playing at Medium 720p.

Are_The_MaDNess1305d ago

its not that demanding IMO.
my GTX 580 does 40+ at all times no matter what at max settings, most of the time its running at 60

4Sh0w1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

Yeah this game looks good, better than last gen overall but its by no means a graphical masterpiece. This just proves once again like I just recently saw with The Amazing Spiderman2 1080p label has very little to do with how visually impressive a game looks. Visuals are more dependent on art style, engine, effects and attention to detail, etc rather than res, that's why just targeting 1080p doesn't mean it will look better if you maxed out all areas at 900p. Still unlike Spiderman at least Wolfenstein is a great game.

thekhurg1305d ago

So if they're claiming they only achieved 1080p/60fps because of a scale-able engine, does that confirm that the assets for the PS4 and Xbox One versions are in fact different?

That type of comment also makes me wonder if the PS4 version is scaled "higher" because if it was the other way around, they would have commented that achieving 1080p/60fps on the PS4 was because of a scale-able engine.

falviousuk1305d ago

Why dont you just go play the games instead of worrying about assets, resolution, FPS and such. If a game is good and fun thats all that matters.

Developers are the only ones that need to be concerned about the performance of their games.

ZeroX98761305d ago

played it on PC (Max settings) and compared to the PS4 footage, the difference isn't significant enough to justify the better hardware.

Deividas1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

@falviouuk

Actually on PC you need to worry about that shit because people who have high end PCs (like myself) want to play the game in its full glory like its intended. But because the developers have crappy optimization for the PC version, the dipping in frames, Texture loading delays, etc all make the game less enjoyable. Im loving the game myself but am getting very frusttrated in getting frames dip to the 20s on only high settings for my MSI R9 280X (dissabled Crossfire)

But your right, who cares if the game is running at 20fps when it should be around 60. Not that big of a deal at all and no one should care. Stupid.

Utalkin2me1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

I have a 780ti and have major frame issues. I have to turn shadow resolution down to fix the stuttering and long low framerate problems after cutscenes.

Are_The_MaDNess1305d ago

well i for one really enjoy the huge difference in forced the 16k textures over the auto balancing texture sizes. i enjoy my high detail and higher framerate, and anything better than 40FPS is good enough for me

AliTheSnake11305d ago

The question is , are the graphics settings the same on both PS4 and X1 ?.

Are_The_MaDNess1305d ago

well im not sure if the download size is the same on the consoles, if they are. then they have the same 16k textures. but the engine is using a virtual texture streaming thing going for it. so texture res is going up and down all the time after the performance you are having. that is how Rage worked, and thats how it works on the PC aswell on the vanilla settings, tho you can force texture sizes on the PC version aswell tho in both games. making the game look much better than what it is with vanilla settings.

mikeslemonade1305d ago

1. Master race is master of none lol

2. They were able to get 1080p and 60 frames on X1 because it was parity with PS4.

Fact!

DevilOgreFish1305d ago

ZeroX9876- "played it on PC (Max settings) and compared to the PS4 footage, the difference isn't significant enough to justify the better hardware."

so the visuals were set for parity, terrific.
game weighs almost 50 gbs and it's got buggy pc support, it's Rage all over again, great. /s

Fluke_Skywalker1305d ago

@Zero
Maybe not but the price difference is. I literally got this and Watchdogs off ckeys.com for the same price as just one of them alone for the PS4!

UltraNova1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

So if their engine is as scaleable as they claim where did that 50% extra GPU grant of the ps4 go?

Cause those comparison pics out there show only parity, not scale-ability.

elhebbo161304d ago

You dont understand, AMD has bad OpenGL drivers (compared to nvidia) and Idtech 5 only runs on OpenGL, no DX.

+ Show (11) more repliesLast reply 1304d ago
Stapleface1305d ago

Seems like an AMD driver issue. People playing on Nvidia cards do not seem to be having any problems.

Utalkin2me1305d ago

I have tons of problems on my 780ti.

Stapleface1305d ago

That sucks. There are benchmarks out of it running well on a 780ti. I actually have this coming for the ps4, didn't get it for my pc or I would let you know if I had the same issues as that is what I have in my pc as well. I was just stating what I had read so far in a few forums. But there are always exceptions. Hopefully both Nvidia and AMD get a new driver out soon that fixes issues for both.

Eyesoftheraven1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

I''m playing on a 780Ti SC @ 3440x1444p and it only runs at constant 60 fps if I turn off screen space reflections and turn on texture compression. Screen Space Reflections tanks the FPS at any resolution and turning texture compression off causes extremely long texture pop in and even crashes the game as if the GPU is out of memory. Changing shadow resolution among the other options makes no discernible difference in performance. All in all, it's way beter than RAGE's launch but still funky and in need of some patches. Definitely tolerable though.

Eonjay1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

In reference to PC the game seems to have issues with AMD cards. This is one of the main drawback to PC gaming. Just because you get a decent card doesn't mean you will get appropriate performance. At least with consoles, the has to at least be able to run on it.
Edit: @Stapleface

Exactly.

WalterWJR1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

My 280x runs this game okay, the majority of the time staying at 60fps. It's just a shame crossfire is not supported.

InFAMOUS11305d ago

Ya same here. Running an R9 280x with i7 4770 and 12gb ram and I'm running medium settings on 1080p and getting between 30-45fps. Sad.

AnEwGuY1304d ago (Edited 1304d ago )

My GTX780 and i7 have no problems on Ultra. Anyone who games on PC without Nvidia should expect to have issues with a LOT of games.

HollowedSoul141304d ago

yeah game has barely if not any anti aliasing.def a lazy pc port with capped 60 fps. why even bother buying a gsync module with an asus 144hz monitor when your forced to run at 60fps with 30 fps cutscenes. game runs fine at 60 fps with my 780ti, just disappointed with the lack of graphic settings and 60 fps cap.

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1304d ago
core_51305d ago

but it looks not really next-gen

Chrischi19881305d ago

Nothing really looks next gen, only a few games, which basically offer not so great gameplay itself. If something is completly foreseeable, than you can make stuff look better.

1305d ago
ThatEnglishDude1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

@Cobra951

Nothing looks 'next gen' because we're not even a year into it. I never ceased to be amazed by people who expect so much in such a short space of time. We're still seeing many cross-gen games (Wolfenstein being one of them...and Watch_Dogs) Until developers start making games exclusively for next gen (now current gen) systems, we're not going to see a great deal of difference in visual fidelity. That's just how it is. Developers who choose to make cross-gen games are limited by a game engine that must be compatible with a wider range of consoles and technical specifications.

Phoenix761305d ago

I agree with thatEnglishman. People overlook the fact that cross gen games are being made to fit on older systems which only have 512mb ram in them, and out of that you only get around 300mb for graphics due to the OS requiring around 150mb alone and that's before you add ram reserved for audio as well.

Tempest3171305d ago

@cobra951
Not that much better? Ps3 had (roughly) a 7800 gt series gpu...ps4 has roughly 660 ti series. Not taking into account the massive cpu difference, the difference of 6 generations and multiple architecture changes is way more than "not that much better". The link is the closest comparison I could find to demonstrate the power difference. Even though those arent identical cards it still shows the power difference between that generation and current. Cpus will show similar increases in power, along with massively more ram, with a monstrous amount of throughput comparatively. This generation is nearly as much of a power increase as the previous.

www.anandtech.com/bench/produ ct/521?vs=647

denawayne1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

@Cobra - All you have to do is compare a last gen launch game like Gun or PDZ to GTA V.

Enough said

Chrischi19881305d ago

But how can this be a valid point, but at the same time all trolls come out and say Wii U is weaker than a PS3, or just as strong, even though it is way stronger and was also only out for a year and only got Xbox360 ports, which are based around CPU, even though for Wii U you need to develop around the GPU... I mean, Nintendos first party titles pretty much showed, that it can handle way way more, than what we give it credit for.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1305d ago
creatchee1305d ago

It's not the most visually impressive next-gen game, but it definitely looks better than last gen versions. Regardless, the game is a blast to play and runs rock solid for me. Definitely has that old school feel.

Ausbo1305d ago

No cross Gen games look next Gen.

there are 3 next Gen looking games OUT right now. Ryse, Killzone, and Infamous

creatchee1305d ago

So true - developing specifically for the hardware generation you are releasing on is the only way to get the appropriate look of a next-gen game.

FanboyKilla1305d ago

Wrong ryse and 2k14. The rest are just shiny last gen upgrades. The consoles are next gen. The games are games. Just make a game worth playing, and worth the 60 bucks we pay for them. This "next gen" shi* is a gimmick that alot of you are falling for. There are way better games out there than the ones on ps4 and xone, soooooo even if either system has a nex gen game on it,it isnt better than most last gen games. New consoles, same old developers who couldnt make a good game before = nice shiny system sucky game for $60. (developer) "ching ching" thats the sound of money. The fact that we have these new consoles is the reason games are selling, not because the games are awesome. Gimmick. When your console gets age on it, youll make a awesome game to sell it. Right now its the other way around. Smh at gamers, developers, and the money hungry big wigs in the gaming industry.

Mr Pumblechook1305d ago

It does have 1080p 60fps but the graphics whilst good are not in the same league as Ryse or inFamous. So higher res and frame rate can be achieved by leaving out effects.

Harmy6661305d ago

Forza Motorsport 5 is a perfect example of this. Comparing the retail version to the E3 version that was shown when it was announced, just shows how much detail was taken out to achieve 1080p/60fps.

Utalkin2me1305d ago

I agree too. The game looks ok and the gameplay is just average as well.

Harmy6661305d ago

It doesn't look next gen, because we will never get a "next gen" game. Games that come out are current gen, and thats what current gen games (from this developer/engine) look like...

Some people need to understand exactly what they are saying by things not looking "next gen". Next Gen doesn't exist, only current and past gen do.

I obviously know what you mean, and so to answer that. it's just because Xbox One and PlayStation 4 have only been out for less than 5 months.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1305d ago
Parhelion691305d ago

Id Tech 5 is a very bad engine, with texture pop in and framerate issues on PC

Curiously, it worked out pretty well on PS3 and Xbox360 with Rage, it did have low res textures, but it ran at 60 fps... Maybe Id tech 5 was mostly optimized for last gen hardware?

vallencer1305d ago

I played Wolfenstein for about 3 hours yesterday on my xbox one and there was no pop up at all or frame rate issues. It's possible they just have problems with it on pc. But that can be patched to get fixed.

Are_The_MaDNess1305d ago

texture streaming is much much faster then in rage. atleast on my PC with dual raid ssd's. much faster than rage in anycase on the same system. only time i saw popin was in the plane at the start, thats its and im about 5hours in ATM. and im really picky with my games like that. its a good game, that runs smooth and makes great use of the engine.

Shnooze1305d ago

Are you by any chance running AMD hardware?

SniperControl1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

Been playing this all morning on a high end game dedicated PC on high settings, the graphics aren't really pushing any boundaries as far as i am concerned.

Not surprised it runs at [email protected] on consoles, it looks last gen on them.

No_Limit1305d ago

I am still curious how this game is 1080p and 60fps on XB1 and a lesser game like Trial is only 900p on XB1. What kind of voodoo magic are these developers using?

1305d ago
lelo1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

Trials was very badly optimized... X1's not a top notch powerhouse in graphics but it could handle a game like trails at 1080p/60fps with ease. That simply was very poor programming by a lazy dev.

corvusmd1305d ago (Edited 1305d ago )

Like he just said, it's all about using a quality engine and doing it right.

This game is fun, and it looks great, but that isn't what I find most amusing about it actually. I love all the systems, admittedly I like my X1 the most, but I have love for all of them...what I HATE are fanboys, not fans, but fanboys (they ALL suck, but right now the Sony ones are the worst). So what makes me laugh every time I see a Wolfenstein article now is how...a game that started off as just a blip on the radar and no one was expecting to be this good now has the Sony Defense Force completely freaking out!!! It's like you can feel the fear and anger in every post, they just want to silence everyone and lash out at everything because of this game that wasn't even supposed to be a heavy hitter...all because the Dev did it right with their engine and it actually looks ever so SLIGHTLY better on X1.

It's just ONE GAME, yet it kills them so much, they have lost their "ish". Excuses are flying everywhere "they were bought off" "MS bought parity" "Anti-aliasing" (I'm not even sure half the people saying this knows what it means), etc. These claims are flying all over the place with no proof whatsoever, and despite all the comparisons being the exact same scenes, now they want to complain about lighting or video compression (even though it's the same video)...excuses that they would make fun of for any other game...like Watch Dogs for instance, where a gif vs a direct feed video in different areas of the map with different weather effects is treated like solid proof that one looks better than the other. Does their hypocrisy know no bounds? Chill out guys, it's just a game, and an awesome one at that, I've been having tons of fun playing it and you got your 1080p/60fps and that's all that matters right?

Allsystemgamer1305d ago

Because what you say is not true. It's 900p and has a higher contrast. Whoopdy dooooo. All these "bad textures" your kind points out is a streaming error that was fixed in a patch.

Gamer6661305d ago

There are several factors probably:

- Size of development team
- How much technical expertise help they are getting from MS
- Willingness of Devt/Pub to spend the time to optimize
- May be using some new tricks that the last OS update may have added

+ Show (4) more repliesLast reply 1304d ago