Just Cause 3 can drop to 17fps on Xbox One, suffer 15 minute load times. PS4 Also has issues. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=CrimsonChin;49216757]Both Xbone and PS4 fully install games to the HDD and use the game disc as a physical key basically.[/QUOTE] Yeah, I was pretty sure that was the case but I couldn't find solid specs on the stock hard drive. Some more digging gives me a very shaky number of 80MBps, so if it was reading purely sequentially, it would be able to read the entire game twice over in 15 minutes (the full game is also apparently 40GB instead of 25GB). Either way, point stands. Even the Xb1's weak specs aren't to blame for this game.

[QUOTE=Dark RaveN;49216707]Uh, what's so non-standard is that? Literally all AAA games have proper dynamic physics and some form of environment destruction. Just look at any modern Dice game? [/QUOTE] The newest battlefield I've played is 3, but I doubt anything significant has changed as the newer ones use the same engine, and destruction in 3 was all predefined/scripted. I don't know if this person is correct: [QUOTE=xamllew;49216423]although JC3 has a lot more going on under the hood when the destruction kicks in, shockwave propagation, hinged physical objects, structural integrity, collision calculations and a fuck ton of physical debris particles. Makes sense that optimization will probably come slowly.[/QUOTE] But if they are, then JC3's destruction is actual, dynamic, destruction which requires actual calculations, which in turn could bottleneck at the CPU.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49217285]Yeah, I was pretty sure that was the case but I couldn't find solid specs on the stock hard drive. Some more digging gives me a very shaky number of 80MBps, so if it was reading purely sequentially, it would be able to read the entire game twice over in 15 minutes (the full game is also apparently 40GB instead of 25GB). Either way, point stands. Even the Xb1's weak specs aren't to blame for this game.[/QUOTE] Just FYI, listings of how much free space a game requires from PSN or Xbox Live are usually higher than what the game actually will be when fully downloaded and installed. Reason they list it as a higher number i believe is because the game needs some extra space to decompress it's contents. (cause both the compressed and the decompressed files need to coexist for a moment)

[QUOTE=BusterBluth;49216553]The game dropping below 30 constantly? Tons of major titles on Xbone and PS4 can't keep a solid 30. As mentioned before, its a combination of both[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Saxon;49216768]Plenty of them can keep 60 though so I don't see what so impossible at 30fps. This just screams like they were rushed to make the holiday release, specifically with them rushing to get day 1 patch out before the game even released so we all woulnd't see how bad it was.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=paul simon;49217116]No, that's also entirely up to the devs. The consoles have nothing to do with it. There's no 30fps or 900p limits in the consoles, it's something the dev decides when making the game for that specific hardware.[/QUOTE] Okay, I can see I need to lay down some truth about resolutions, framerates et cetera. A lot of people seem to be saying stuff that's not actually wrong but doesn't explain the big picture. Every single current-gen game console is [I]able[/I] to render 1920x1080, 60Hz. The Xb1, the PS4, even the Wii U. The Xb1 and PS4 are also able to render 3840x2160 at 24Hz, and they're bound by HDMI 1.4 more than their actual processing power. For comparison, most current PC graphics cards max out at 3840x2160@60Hz, the limit of DisplayPort 1.2, although almost any virtual resolution is possible with multiple display links. That's the only [B]hard[/B] limitation. Everything else is a soft limit - because the limiting factor is "how many triangles can the GPU draw?". You can render an extremely simple game at damn near any resolution, at extreme frame rates, no matter what GPU you use. My ancient, decrepit Radeon 6870 will render a certain game at 1440p, maximum settings, with 32x SSAA, and never dip below a hundred frames per second. That game, incidentally, is UT2004. For a more relevant example, Mario Kart 8 renders at 720p with a rock-solid 60FPS. The Wii U is undoubtedly the weakest of any current-gen console, but because of the simple graphics - no intricate details that require hundreds of thousands of polygons, no massive textures, no crazy postprocess filters - it's able to maintain a truly solid framerate. It's essentially a three-way tradeoff. How much detail do you want to draw? How high a resolution do you want to run at? How high a refresh rate do you want? The product of the three is limited by the hardware power available. And the tradeoff can, and in fact [I]should[/I], change for different games. Very twitchy stuff is served better by a high refresh rate, even if that costs detail or resolution. I will note that every version of Call of Duty hit 60fps, save for the very latest games' last-gen ports - because the fast gameplay means that extra 16ms for the player to react to [I]matters[/I]. For the same reason, Nintendo made MK8 able to run at a full 60fps on their puny hardware - the smoothness and the lower latency helps the game significantly. On the other end, some games could dive to 10fps and be perfectly fine. Civilization would be playable at 1fps, at least on a touchscreen - but it would quickly become harder to play as you drop the resolution, because it actually uses all of those pixels for data. The original Doom, on the original 386, ran at what, 15fps? They designed the game to be playable at those speeds, and it worked. A game like this needs long draw distances and lots of objects on screen (ie. "lots of details"). It also has lots of foliage, which for complicated technical reasons means lots of overdraw, which for complicated technical reasons means the GPU can't run at full efficiency no matter how good your programmer is. So making a framerate and resolution tradeoff is probably the right call from a game design perspective. 900p30 really ought to be sufficient for this game. And based on other games, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think the hardware can't handle significantly more than that. (That said, higher resolutions and framerates are [I]never[/I] "worse". A game that is perfectly fine at 30fps can only be improved by going to 60fps; a game that was fine at 800x600 is improved at 3840x2160. If you could emulate an Xb1 on better hardware to make the game run at 2160p120, it will be better - diminishing returns are still returns.) The problem here is stability. While you can tell 30fps from 60fps when viewed side-by-side, 30fps is not noticeably bad on its own. Framerate [I]hitches[/I] are what people notice - a game that's a constant 33ms between frames is better than one that's 16ms between two frames, and 50ms between the next two, and vastly better than one that's 10ms between most frames but hitches for 800ms once a minute. That is what appears to be the problem here, and that is usually caused by some other component of the system. In this case, it seems like either the GPU is running out of memory, or the CPU is unable to send it instructions fast enough, although there are many other potential causes and I don't have enough information to be sure. These sorts of issues can usually be patched, because they're the result of actual optimization problems rather than "we tried to make the GPU do more than it can do", which usually requires downscaling your art assets to fix. And the other issues, of course, are pretty clearly the result of a poor port. I still suspect the storage is at fault for at least some of the problems - mostly because PCs are [I]not[/I] reporting those problems, and PCs almost always have much faster storage access. But again, there's a lot of things that could cause it, and I'm not skilled enough to be absolutely sure which even if I had a devkit and profiler in front of me.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49217561]Okay, I can see I need to lay down some truth about resolutions, framerates et cetera. A lot of people seem to be saying stuff that's not actually wrong but doesn't explain the big picture. Every single current-gen game console is [I]able[/I] to render 1920x1080, 60Hz. The Xb1, the PS4, even the Wii U. The Xb1 and PS4 are also able to render 3840x2160 at 24Hz, and they're bound by HDMI 1.4 more than their actual processing power. For comparison, most current PC graphics cards max out at 3840x2160@60Hz, the limit of DisplayPort 1.2, although almost any virtual resolution is possible with multiple display links. That's the only [B]hard[/B] limitation. Everything else is a soft limit - because the limiting factor is "how many triangles can the GPU draw?". You can render an extremely simple game at damn near any resolution, at extreme frame rates, no matter what GPU you use. My ancient, decrepit Radeon 6870 will render a certain game at 1440p, maximum settings, with 32x SSAA, and never dip below a hundred frames per second. That game, incidentally, is UT2004. For a more relevant example, Mario Kart 8 renders at 720p with a rock-solid 60FPS. The Wii U is undoubtedly the weakest of any current-gen console, but because of the simple graphics - no intricate details that require hundreds of thousands of polygons, no massive textures, no crazy postprocess filters - it's able to maintain a truly solid framerate. It's essentially a three-way tradeoff. How much detail do you want to draw? How high a resolution do you want to run at? How high a refresh rate do you want? The product of the three is limited by the hardware power available. And the tradeoff can, and in fact [I]should[/I], change for different games. Very twitchy stuff is served better by a high refresh rate, even if that costs detail or resolution. I will note that every version of Call of Duty hit 60fps, save for the very latest games' last-gen ports - because the fast gameplay means that extra 16ms for the player to react to [I]matters[/I]. For the same reason, Nintendo made MK8 able to run at a full 60fps on their puny hardware - the smoothness and the lower latency helps the game significantly. On the other end, some games could dive to 10fps and be perfectly fine. Civilization would be playable at 1fps, at least on a touchscreen - but it would quickly become harder to play as you drop the resolution, because it actually uses all of those pixels for data. The original Doom, on the original 386, ran at what, 15fps? They designed the game to be playable at those speeds, and it worked. A game like this needs long draw distances and lots of objects on screen (ie. "lots of details"). It also has lots of foliage, which for complicated technical reasons means lots of overdraw, which for complicated technical reasons means the GPU can't run at full efficiency no matter how good your programmer is. So making a framerate and resolution tradeoff is probably the right call from a game design perspective. 900p30 really ought to be sufficient for this game. And based on other games, it doesn't seem unreasonable to think the hardware can't handle significantly more than that. (That said, higher resolutions and framerates are [I]never[/I] "worse". A game that is perfectly fine at 30fps can only be improved by going to 60fps; a game that was fine at 800x600 is improved at 3840x2160. If you could emulate an Xb1 on better hardware to make the game run at 2160p120, it will be better - diminishing returns are still returns.) The problem here is stability. While you can tell 30fps from 60fps when viewed side-by-side, 30fps is not noticeably bad on its own. Framerate [I]hitches[/I] are what people notice - a game that's a constant 33ms between frames is better than one that's 16ms between two frames, and 50ms between the next two, and vastly better than one that's 10ms between most frames but hitches for 800ms once a minute. That is what appears to be the problem here, and that is usually caused by some other component of the system. In this case, it seems like either the GPU is running out of memory, or the CPU is unable to send it instructions fast enough, although there are many other potential causes and I don't have enough information to be sure. These sorts of issues can usually be patched, because they're the result of actual optimization problems rather than "we tried to make the GPU do more than it can do", which usually requires downscaling your art assets to fix. And the other issues, of course, are pretty clearly the result of a poor port. I still suspect the storage is at fault for at least some of the problems - mostly because PCs are [I]not[/I] reporting those problems, and PCs almost always have much faster storage access. But again, there's a lot of things that could cause it, and I'm not skilled enough to be absolutely sure which even if I had a devkit and profiler in front of me.[/QUOTE] Overall decent post but a few notes: Mario Kart 8 drops to 30fps for 3-4 local players. Overdraw isn't really that complicated. It just means the GPU has to render something behind a partly transparent object first and then cover it up wherever that object is more than 0% opaque, making those previously rendered pixels wasted effort (assuming the front object is 100% opaque, otherwise you do need to render the object behind). It's helped [I]tremendously[/I] by clustered deferred shading and hasn't been a big issue for years. Saying this game's performance is largely affected by overdraw isn't true. There are a number of methods of rendering that aren't affected by overdraw, it's really just rasterization. Saying it's unsolvable isn't necessarily true. Framerate drops can be caused by a number of things but it's definitely not the GPU running out of memory or the CPU not sending it instructions fast enough. If the CPU was too slow at sending instructions then how would any faster framerate be possible? Here it's guaranteed to be due to the physics engine having to do a ton of work. This could get into timesteps and GPU bubbles and all sorts of stuff that would take way too much time to break down.

Enlightening post Anyway the PC version is apparently worse than this for a lot of users, check out steam reviews.

[QUOTE=DOG-GY;49218299]Overdraw isn't really that copmlicated.[/QUOTE] My post was already long enough without going into further detail. At [I]some[/I] point I have to just say "and then this happens because that's just how things work". And yes, there are many ways to mitigate overdraw, but some amount is unavoidable. I probably shouldn't have mentioned it though because it probably isn't a major factor. [QUOTE=DOG-GY;49218299]Framerate drops can be caused by a number of things but it's definitely not the GPU running out of memory or the CPU not sending it instructions fast enough. If the CPU was too slow at sending instructions then how would any faster framerate be possible? Here it's guaranteed to be due to the physics engine having to do a ton of work. This could get into timesteps and GPU bubbles and all sorts of stuff that would take way too much time to break down.[/QUOTE] On the memory contention, I was thinking of PCs - if VRAM is full it starts swapping to main system RAM, which hurts performance quite a bit. Momentarily forgot Xb1/PS4 are unified-memory architectures, where main RAM and VRAM are the same physical memory. On the CPU side, what I meant was "the CPU is too busy with other things to send draw calls at the necessary rate", not that the CPU can't do so even with no other tasks. So we're saying the same thing here; I said it in a less technical way for a less technical audience.

[QUOTE=gman003-main;49217561]And the other issues, of course, are pretty clearly the result of a poor port. I still suspect the storage is at fault for at least some of the problems - mostly because PCs are [I]not[/I] reporting those problems, and PCs almost always have much faster storage access. But again, there's a lot of things that could cause it, and I'm not skilled enough to be absolutely sure which even if I had a devkit and profiler in front of me.[/QUOTE] The PS4 at least uses a user-replacable bog standard 2.5" 500GB drive. For a test, someone should boot the game from an SSD on both their PS4 and their PC, and compare the times.

[QUOTE=Saxon;49218449]Enlightening post Anyway the PC version is apparently worse than this for a lot of users, check out steam reviews.[/QUOTE] Steam reviews are almost always garbage The drivers aren't out yet and on a 680 the game runs pretty well. I know I'm not the only one running the game well on old hardware

[QUOTE=paul simon;49219020]The PS4 at least uses a user-replacable bog standard 2.5" 500GB drive. For a test, someone should boot the game from an SSD on both their PS4 and their PC, and compare the times.[/QUOTE]I have a SSD in my PS4. There's very little difference in load speed than what people with the standard hard drive(s) seem to be reporting. I'll be getting my PC code tomorrow. I can do more tests once I get it installed.

[QUOTE=RichyZ;49219027]idk it seems pretty valid to rate the game poorly because it simply won't function on their computer even though they hit the recommended specs[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that isn't valid. Steam reviews are always flooded with that and I'm not sure I really believe the bulk of them sometimes. It sucks but I don't ever seem to have these issues with aging hardware so I'm just not sure what to think.

I'd trust steam reviews more than I trust any other community review site, at least with steam you have to own the game

Just to be clear. I have this on ps4. Been playing for a week (my copy shipped early) and it is perfectly playable. Yes the load times are extreme but game play wise I've not experienced shitty unplayable fps at all.

[QUOTE=HAKKAR!!!;49219045]I'd trust steam reviews more than I trust any other community review site, at least with steam you have to own the game[/QUOTE] You still have to take them with a grain of salt, but generally, when a Steam game manages to get "Mixed" it's a bit of a worry.

[QUOTE=Makol;49219034]I have a SSD in my PS4. There's very little difference in load speed than what people with the standard hard drive(s) seem to be reporting. I'll be getting my PC code tomorrow. I can do more test once I get it installed.[/QUOTE] This indicates that things really could be improved. We'll see in the following days / weeks i guess.

I ordered a copy off GMG like an hour ago and still no key. So I'm assuming they ran out. Tried to save some money. I need to write GMG off with how often they seem to run out. Was looking forward to seeing how the grapple was changed

Bummed that the game is having a bit of a rocky launch. It really looked like a straight improvement over 2 in gameplay, vehicles, and mechanics in almost every way. The game unlocks on PSN momentarily, but its too late at night for me to play it now and I will likely need to wait until late afternoon on Wednesday to really sit down and enjoy it. Reading some of the reviews upsets me a bit when they claim that it isnt innovating enough, when it looks like the game stayed true to its roots (explosions and awful dialogue) while also building on what 2 introduced. Side effect of buying into the hype, I guess. Probably the last game I am going to pre-order for a little while. I hope patches fix the game on all platforms and it gets an honest chance at some good reviews.

[QUOTE=Brt5470;49219217]I ordered a copy off GMG like an hour ago and still no key. So I'm assuming they ran out. Tried to save some money. I need to write GMG off with how often they seem to run out. Was looking forward to seeing how the grapple was changed[/QUOTE] Grapple isn't seem changed in the slightest, other than the slightly stronger power and longer range. It feels like playing JC2 with the grapple mod. It's good, but it's nothing new - which is unfortunately my biggest issue with JC3.

[QUOTE=Grandzeit;49219390]Grapple isn't seem changed in the slightest, other than the slightly stronger power and longer range. It feels like playing JC2 with the grapple mod. It's good, but it's nothing new - which is unfortunately my biggest issue with JC3.[/QUOTE] Uhm No. Even with the grapple mod, you could never reel stuff in The grapple alone has changed massively.

Yet, testing games before launch is for plebs

I have faith in Avalanche Studios. JC2 was great and I haven't heard anything awful about Mad Max. Dudes just need to wait for a patch.

Bought this on steam but had to get refunded. Shit was unplayable, even with the graphics turned down.

Nvidia patch made the game buttery smooth.