Gears of War Ultimate Edition: Xbox One vs Xbox 360 Gameplay Frame-Rate Test

Digital Foundry

The Coalition's remake of the original Gears of War on Xbox One is pretty sweet! Here's a performance profile of both single-player and multiplayer modes, along with comparisons with the original Xbox 360 version of the game.

The story is too old to be commented.
Genuine-User1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Campaign dipping below 30fps with screen-tearing (uncommon instances) is quite disappointing for a 9 year old remastered game.

Xbonewone320151206d ago

Not really since the graphics have been increased so well.

Genuine-User1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

That's without a doubt. But it isn't pushing visuals that should struggle with a locked 30 and even screen-tear in some instances.

ABizzel11206d ago

Stop it, it's the PC version modded and retextured (Just like Tomb Raider Definitive Edition).

That being said the performance is still acceptable on XBO, because even when the framerate dips it's for a very brief second, and shoots right back up to 30fps.

The performance issues are a bit unfortunate, but it shouldn't ruin the experience and as @Genuine-User said it's surprising considering the core of this game was build to run on Intel Core Duo T5500 CPUs and 7600 GPU, and even though these consoles have low end CPUs they're still unanimously better than that old PC's specs, and this game was running 1080p @ 60fps with 8x AA on GTX 460 cards which the XBO should be more than capable of running with. The added textures and retooled textures take a toll, but it shouldn't be this much. There's a performance issue somewhere that a patch should hopefully be able to fix.

Xbonewone320151206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Disagree on the 60fps.

There are many factors that determine emulated quality.

High end pc's still cant emulate all ps3 games with any kind of decent frame rate due to the complexity of the ps3 emulation required.

Even sega saturn games still struggle in a lot of cases.

TLOU remastered on ps4 has frame dips in places, and the visuals were not even improved that much. Most certainly nowhere near to the extent that this gears remake has seen.

Locked 30 fps with impressive resolution and texture quality increase with new particle effects is an extremely impressive make over.

You fanboys are strange. If its not resolution you're whinging about, its frame rates.

Frame rates is one area the xb1 consistently outshines the ps4.

Stop nitpicking and enjoy this amazing remake.

SpaceRanger1206d ago

"Frame rates is one area the xb1 consistently outshines the ps4."

You do realize that your statement is completely false right? Please provide some links or info if you're going to make a ridiculous claim like that. Just because you say it to yourself over and over doesn't make it true.

GenuineGamer1206d ago

Honestly i don't know why they had to reduce the campaign to 30 in the first place. It should be 60 across the board.. its a decade old game at its bones its not exactly pushing the limit...

people on here know i prefer xbox and defend it where i feel necessary, and im a huge gears fan, but honestly the game is rife with low detail textures across the board. I was honestly expecting it to look better than it does. and yes i bought it day one.

I still love it and it is really fun especially the multiplayer, but from a technical perspective the xbox one is capable of much more than this game is putting out from what ive seen so i'm not sure why its like this.

Bigpappy1206d ago

SPLIT SCREEN. The reason given for Halo 5 not having it.

GenuineGamer1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

No i highly doubt its due to split screen. Halo 5 does not have split screen due to 343 not having enough time to implement/optimize for it due to the timing of certain engine related factors. If halo 5 was due next year and development was still where its at now it would have split screen.

My honest opinion is that this gears remaster was rushed. In person its blurry considering its native 1080p, lots of jaggies, low detail textures literally everywhere and lack of 60fps in campaign lead me to this conclusion.

Lack of polish and optimization likely due to being rushed.

Now im not trying to be negative for the sake of it but this is my opinion from my personal experience with the game.

Also i have encountered various bugs in the campaign such as ai disappearing, my gun reloading by itself even though im not empty and such.

It just feels unfinished/unpolished to me.

The game is still epic though and extremely fun. definitely worth buying regardless of these minor issues.

KionicWarlord2221206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Hell no this game wasn't rushed. The stuff people say on n4g i cant lol

They improve the entire cutscenes and revamp the lighting. character models and textures in the campaign....but it is rushed?


The multiplayer maps were all revamped as well and run at a locked 60 fps.

Like i cant even. I dont get how some "SLIGHT" hitches in campaign in performance which is perfectly understandable would lead you to this assumption.

GenuineGamer1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Dude it is what it is. Its lacking the final polish, at least it looks that way to me in person actually playing it.

The improvements they have made across the board are great and the facial animations especially are really good. Sounds much better too.

Honestly play the game again, look around the environment closely and tell me that it doesn't look lackluster for a game on this gen in 2015.

There are low resolution textures for days!!! and it does look blurry for a native 1080p image. i was expecting a nice crisp clean image but its not the case and im assuming its from whatever AA effect they have used or something.

Im not attacking the game, its awesome and all the positive improvements they have made should not be overshadowed by these small things, but can we not have an honest conversation about these things without getting defensive? It is a thread about the games performance after all.

If the game had more time in development i would expect 60fps in campaign to be achieved and proper high resolution textures all around. and that's what it should have been and what i was expecting tbh.

Its great what they have done it really does look awesome, but it feels not quite 100% finished to me and lacking that final bit of polish it deserves to make it really shine.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 1206d ago
pandehz1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Games do that.

I used to play Dying Light at roughly 81 fps which is overkill so I lock it at 60. By itself it adjusts anywhere between 57-60 for no reason. Its a gpu thing i think. Maybe it pre renders frames ahead or adjusts for some reason we dont know. But yea frame readers dont account for adjustments. Adjustments are made so that we dont have control delay.

On nvidia inspector when u lock a game at 60 it recommends 65 or even 59 but not 60. No idea why but ppl say its to reduce control delay.

Im assuming thats whats happening here. Theres no reason this game cant do 30fps locked. Its not so graphically intense.

What i got from this video is that it runs at 30 and 60 well.

Magicite1206d ago

MS aint really good at remasters.

+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 1206d ago
fitfox1206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

why no 60fps for single player? give us campaign lovers some love developers.

Ristul1206d ago

I'm a bit surprised that the game can not keep a solid 30fps in the campaign, at least it looks great at 1080p but in this case maybe they should have lowered the resolution in order to reach 60fps.

gfk3421206d ago

More surprising is the fact that the X1 version has some missing atmospheric effects as follows:
- dust blowing across at the start of the video,
- light trays at around 0:40;
- heavy rainfall at around 2:00.

All in all, I like more the game atmosphere of the X360 version than the sterile one of the X1 version.

Ristul1206d ago

Yeah, I have not played the remaster (will play it on PC), but I can say that one of the things I liked with the first one on 360 was the dark atmosphere. It threaded on that horror feeling witch I think they should have delved deeper into with the sequels.

KionicWarlord2221206d ago (Edited 1206d ago )

Gears ultimate has more realistic lighting during the entire game now.

Saying some light in that scene gears of war 1 on 360 that is baked is a missing atmospheric effect isn't true.

Theres tons of better lighting throughout this video.

The rain in the xbox one version is clearly more detailed then the rain in 360.

Gears of war ultimate curbstomps the 360 version all around.

You cant be serious saying you like the xbox 360 version over xbox one after watching this.

The forest area alone xbox one is superior in a night and day.

Theres your "atmospheric effects" lol

corroios1206d ago

And people we were all against some reviews that were telling this...

blakstarz1206d ago

Definetly drops when you first run into the least that's what I noticed.

Show all comments (25)