Fenix Bazaar writes: Battlefield 1 is finally out in the wild, and if you haven’t yet invested in DICE’s blockbuster, best you get out and do it because it’s one of the best games of the year. The game takes the franchise to new heights, offering arguably the best campaign in the series as well as refreshing multiplayer that breaks away from the futuristic outings that currently plague the genre.
I’ve spent quite a bit of time with the game since before launch, having now clocked more than 24 hours in the multiplayer. Safe to say I’m enjoying it … a lot. Now, I don’t proclaim to be the best Battlefield player going around — quite the opposite — but I have found a comfort zone that allows me to best enjoy the game as I know DICE intended players to.
Unfortunately, the experience is sometimes hampered by players who just play for themselves, or don’t quite understand and grasp the concepts of certain mechanics, features and classes. Battlefield 1 can be a punishing game if you don’t play it the right way, and that punishment tends to hit hard for the rest of the player’s team.
So what sort of player do you not want to be out in the midst of the chaos? Here’s my list of the 9 worst types of Battlefield 1 player.
Xbox Series X's FPS Boost is game-changing when it works and disappointing when it doesn't. While frame rates are often consistent, many titles make concerning sacrifices. This lost compiles 20 FPS Boost games that make major sacrifices, detailing their drawbacks.
As someone with the Series S, it makes more of an impact there than on the X. From what i have seen, if the game already supported One X enhancements, then its best to just let it be on the Series X.
But there’s also 13 games that get FPS Boost on Series X that don’t get it on Series S and another number of game that have higher framerate targets with FPS Boost on Series X than Series S so it’s actually not that cut and dry. It’s pretty disappointing on both ends. The cases where it works as intended or as people may have initially thought it would turn out are too few.
If you have Series S and you use backwards compatibility... it is not comparable to Series X. Series S runs vanilla Xbox One versions because of the lack of RAM to emulate Xbox One X ones, for example. Series X is far greater improvement on BC.
Replies(3)Great to have options I’ve gone back to playing dragon age inquisition and it runs superbly. Good article though detailing differences.
Wow, these downplaying articles are rife this week in the lead up to E3.
Funny how it is only this week these articles are surfacing, even though we knew about Series X not running upgrades from Xbox One X BC games months ago. As per article :-
"If a game doesn't run at a stable performance level, the Microsoft backwards-compatibility team can't adjust game settings or resolution to best reach the target frame rate."
Well yeah, you can not change some other developers game code, only they can enhance their own game via next-gen patches.
There is even one now on how Gamepass for PC is "broken".
Wonder what we will see next? We have had Xbox not making any money on any console ever, gamepass for PC is broken, FPS boost has lackluster upgrades, xbox division is being ran in the red at a consistent loss, gamepass has never been profitable, all in the lead up to Xbox and Bethesda's E3 showing.
Funny times, roll on E3 for me, can't wait.
The issue with games not running One X enhancements as not as simple as you state as again, the first 2 batches had games that worked with One X enhancements. Prey, UFC 4, and Skyrim ran with Xbox One X enhancements. Then in the final batch, we got Shadow of the Tomb Raider. The issue is the inconsistency.
Microsoft taking the “exploit” away that used to exist for still running with One X code in Fallout 4. That workaround got removed which is disappointing.
“We’ve known for months”
Before the last batch of 74 games, we only had 2-3 games that lost the enhancements? So it’s actually only been ONE month that we’ve seen how much of a dramatic cut many games have had to make.
Regardless, this article exists to compile each title’s rendering set-up with and without FPS Boost. I don’t get why people are always so personally insulted when something isn’t praised to high heavens. I LOVED replaying Prey with FPS Boost because I got the best of both worlds. Also loved replaying Shadow of The Tomb Raider. Any of the games on this list however?? Not so impressive.
"So it’s actually only been ONE month"
https://www.ign.com/article...
Since before launch - September 2020
https://twistedvoxel.com/fp...
March 2021
So yeah, it has been known for months, 3 to be precise
All in all, the title description of "lackluster upgrades" is just the series console using the Xbox One S version of the game without the One X enhancements, to achieve the FPS boost.
Says it all when the article needs a disclaimer saying they are essentially "making assumptions"
"While this list compiles information as accurately as possible, some assumptions will be made about dynamic resolution. It is assumed that with the sheer horsepower thrown at base Xbox One code, the dynamic resolution scaler will always hit its peak even with the boosted frame rate. If a bullet-point is book-ended by saying DRS can't be discounted, it's because we didn't have enough information to make a safe claim. "
What you’re highlighting are from the first 2 batches, which my comment already addressed. It was a VERY SMALL number of games that needed sacrifices so it was safe to assume they were outliers. Now with 97 games, 20 of them using Xbox One base code(and a large portion also just being games that never got enhanced to begin with so it’s not actually 77 enhanced One X titles that keep them), it’s a much larger issue than the first 2 batches indiciated. It wasn’t until the final batch in late April or early May, that we saw just how limited the feature is and just how limited Microsoft’s lack of user choice in letting us keep the enhancements is.
Also, that first link is irrelevant because that’s about Series S, a whole separate conversation. This article and conversation is about Series X. Also, at least the article is transparent when it is making an assumption rather than many game journalists that simply regurgitate PR speak as fact, spreading misinformation. When those games revert to base Xbox One code, it’s a fact that they’re going to be using the Xbox One resolution range for that title. The assumption is whether it locks to the top-end or if it drops below the max resolution the DRS was set at for base Xbox One. For many games, we have the data to safely say it’s running at the max resolution. For others, we don’t. It’s not like the article is just pulling resolutions out of its ass.
I simply said the following :-
"We knew about Series X not running Xbox One X versions of BC games months ago" - Fact, regardless of how you want to spin it about batches. 20 games (the ones in the list) run the Xbox One code, like you said, but as stated by the teams themselves, this is to enable FPS boost.
It is only an issue, for those that want the FPS boost, along with the One X enhancements, for the majority, they will take the sacrifice of resolution downgrades, to play at a higher framerate, if that is what they want.
Best explained by the article itself :-
"Unfortunately, FPS Boost has hard limits because no game code is being touched. If a game doesn't run at a stable performance level, the Microsoft backwards-compatibility team can't adjust game settings or resolution to best reach the target frame rate."
So what they are essentially saying, is they can not reprogram games they do not own, to enable the resolution to be stable, along with using FPS boost, so they have to use the base code, to enable the doubling of framerate.
If they started delving and dabbling in other games source code, they will have a mightily fine and hefty lawsuit coming there way.
This will only be addressed for the 20 games in question, via a developer patch. Expect these to be fixed in due course as and when.
But to label things as "lackluster upgrades" when there is only 1 upgrade involved FPS boost, is nothing short of fanboyish.
In short :-
All 20 games on the list, are running at Xbox One resolution with FPS boost enabled, instead of the Xbox One X enhanced versions resolution.
This is a known issue, even when running the same games through the BC program.
This Armistice Day, take a few moments to revisit the early 20th-century war in a digital historical setting. The following games recreate elements of the Great War, immersing players in an experience that may help them appreciate the reality of the fight that cost more than 9 million lives.
Bárbara writes: "History-inspired games have been around for a while and I’m pretty sure every gamer has come across one or two in their lifetime. And while they can be incredibly fun to play, their historical accuracy is often pretty shaky. Don’t get me wrong, in recent years developers have started to work harder to get facts right, but we’re still far from reality. Today we will explore 4 big games that butchered the chapters of history they are based on."
EA tried to market Battlefield 1 as an epic WW1 period piece. It was really just a hybrid of stripped down Battlefield 4 and Star Wars Battlefront (2015) disguised as WW1 shooter.
I'm not sure what it was you played but it certainly weren't BF1. The campaign showing the different periods of the war through the eyes of different soldiers was a good way to show the harsh reality of a WW. Was it groundbreaking? No, but it was a good effort.
It also played nothing like SW and added a whole heap of things to the BF formula to simply be called a reskin.
The “harsh reality” of WW1 was not shown by BF1. There is mission where the player is wearing tank-like armour that is repeatedly stated as being near impervious to damage. Metal armour existed in WW1, but was quickly abandoned as it wasn’t effective against bullets or explosives. Or the other reality breaking mission we’re you play as a man with superhuman speed....
BF1 streamed down the guns mechanics making all weapons easier to use. Classes were marginalized and team-play was stripped down. BF1 focused on chaotic gameplay with no emphasis on strategy, just like Battlefront. Reduced gun skill , again just like Battlefront.
So you you are telling me historically you cant jump off a ten story building into hay and live.
Indeed. Ezio actually died in ACII when he jumped off that tall building in Florence. If I recall correctly, that one was actually a cart with a pile of flower petals. Everything that happened after that was him in the afterlife envisioning where life would have taken him had he lived. Clearly the guy had a grim view on his future...
I should of read this before I juuuuummmppee................. ............................... .....
Love the Saving Private Ryan gifs.
Unfortunately this iteration of Battlefield seems to suffer from this kind of player issue. Even during the beta not one player dropped a medkit in my hours of play.
I think the community has changed a little since BF4.
''The squad that doesn’t play as a squad''
This is the most critical one i think.
Medic class who aren't actually being medics are the worst. They use the class for the primary weapons because they are so good. Don't revive, don't drop med kits.. You would think they would at least drop a kit for them selves..nope.
Pretty much nobody plays their class. Everyone is just acting like every loadout is just an alternate way to play sniper without any gadgets.
Soldiers need to realize there are a BUNCH of non-battlefield veterans who are joining us in this fight, it will take time before they learn the values and prowess of their class and when they do, they will help aid in the victorious battle that is the war to end all wars! ;) but for real, they will catch on!
Don't be in such a hurry to respawn, give someone a few seconds to revive you. That happens to me all the time, I run up to revive them but they quickly die.