SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
Did Guerrilla confirm that multi would run at 1080p?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Battlefield 4 PS4 runs at 720p native [DICE: Incorrect]
- Thread starter Horse Armour
- Start date
sono
Member
Not like this. Not happy here and not ready at all.
Been waiting for majority 1080p since PS3 launch promises...
need me some hUMA benefits, not humorous excuses.
Trickster
Member
Doesnt the weather change, have the big ship crash into the island. And in the trailer it had that bright light, which I'm guessing is a nuke or something. There might be more stuff that happens. And this is ignoring the whole "levelution" stuff
Portugeezer
Member
You are talking about levolution, it still has the environmental destruction you expect, whereas in COD you can blow up specific walls and stuff.
Surely, people here aren't foolish enough to assume that even most high-end PCs could handle BF4 at 1080p60 with zero frame drops? Let alone a PS4?
Something has to give when you're targeting a 60fps--a ridiculously hard target to reach. 1080p is an extreme stress on hardware also. Compromises HAVE to be made somewhere.
Some of you seem to have unrealistic expectations for what the PS4 is actually capable of.
Umm, what are you basing the "15fps at times" on? A few seconds of the MP trailer? That part was probably slowed down on purpose, for dramatic effect in the trailer... NOT because the game itself actually drops to ~15fps.
The devs at Guerilla have already stated they're targeting 60fps for multiplayer in Killzone: Shadow Fall. There are numerous reports on it. Do some googling yourself.
Something has to give when you're targeting a 60fps--a ridiculously hard target to reach. 1080p is an extreme stress on hardware also. Compromises HAVE to be made somewhere.
Some of you seem to have unrealistic expectations for what the PS4 is actually capable of.
Umm, what are you basing the "15fps at times" on? A few seconds of the MP trailer? That part was probably slowed down on purpose, for dramatic effect in the trailer... NOT because the game itself actually drops to ~15fps.
The devs at Guerilla have already stated they're targeting 60fps for multiplayer in Killzone: Shadow Fall. There are numerous reports on it. Do some googling yourself.
Portugeezer
Member
There is multiplayer gameplay video, it definitely drops under 30 at times, around 20fps in some areas I would say. Mostly when there were a lot of particles at once, something they'll probably tone down if they can manage 60fps locked.
soulassssns
Banned
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
LOL that is exactly how I feel right now.
What? The OP was already debunked, multiple times. What are you disappointed about?
~720P in the year 2013+ for "next gen"....LOL.
You got to be shitting me. Some of these devs just do the minimum requirements to get most bang for their buck it seems.
My expectations for this gen are high and shit like this is making me shake my head. I think ill buy the complete edition when its like <$20 if EA/DICE dont get with the program.
You got to be shitting me. Some of these devs just do the minimum requirements to get most bang for their buck it seems.
My expectations for this gen are high and shit like this is making me shake my head. I think ill buy the complete edition when its like <$20 if EA/DICE dont get with the program.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
Try reading the thread and or using common sense before blowing up in front of the internet for no apparent reason.
WHOAguitarninja
Member
There isn't really any indication of when that video was made. It was definitely made prior to Gamescom. Most of the frame drops I noticed seemed to be the random type indicative of early code. ie: major frame drops when running up some steps without much going on.
When it was played on stage it was very close to 60fps most of the time. It wasn't locked at 60, but it never really dropped below 30. In addition there have been some 60hz videos of single player that leaked out that showed SP was 40's and even higher when played with an unlocked framerate.
In a couple months we'll all see who is right and wrong I guess, but its worth considering that in all the live video we have of the game (ie:not from a press reel) the game is running very very fluidly.
....
Argh. The guy tweeting 'lazy developer' makes me angry. :-/
People who use that term have no comprehension of the game development process. It's also incredibly rude and insulting, saying it directly to the technical director.
>:-(
Another neat piece of info is that DICE made some of the best pinball games. It had the best pinball physics before Farsight Studios came along.
fatgamecat
Member
Are you saying I only have to spend $400 to get a machine that runs BF4 at 720p (or 800p, or 900p, or whatever it ends up being) at 60 fps?
I think it's amazing what they're managing to do with the hardware already. Look on the bright side of things.
I think it's amazing what they're managing to do with the hardware already. Look on the bright side of things.
cobragt4001
Banned
Well it's not 1080p, that still sucks. Higher than 720p can mean 800p for all we know.
Phire Phox
Banned
You don't know if its 1080P. We have to wait until close to launch or until DF gets their hands on it.
Atraveller
Banned
900p is more likely, fits the 16:9 TVs.
Kibbles
Member
Battlefield 3 at 720p still looks amazing on my 50" 1080p plasma so I'm not too worried if it's around 720-900p or whatever it needs to be to keep it at 60fps.
I just downloaded that gameplay video in the other thread and the framerate slows down plenty of times, it's distracting. Unless it's my computer chugging at the video, but I doubt that my computer usually handles 1080p video fine.
interesting... id rather have 1080p @ locked 30FPS...
but overall id rather have 720p with no graphical cut backs... if you have to dumb down effects or drop polys or lower texture rez to get the game running at 1080p OR 60FPS... its not worth it imo.
Xbox 360 was balls to the wall with its GPU. Nothing on PC could match it for over a year.
Now compare that with PS4 which has been beaten by PC hardware before it has even released.
cobragt4001
Banned
I hope it is for the sake of console players. I won't lie, I laughed at the reactions of people but honestly it would suck for people who are hyped for a product be disappointed with its performance initially. Also how well bf4 is on consoles reflects how optimized the engine really is, that's a benefit even for pc players like myself.
Edit:
My 670s are ready to tackle bf4 nowwwwww
Atraveller
Banned
It makes me wonder, will more games follow suit in the future? To go the "not-720P-but-still-HD" route.
SMH.
AstroNut325
Member
Wait... what??? You're the one who thought we were going to get slightly better than Wii U hardware before the February unveil. Heck... in the thread about the Luminous engine you thought the best we would get is some jagged to hell and back with lackluster lighting version of the tech demo chick.
I had to post examples of current gen characters that surpassed what YOU thought was going to be the best we would get next gen.
velociraptor
Junior Member
If they can get Planetside 2 running on the PS4, then I think it'll mean that the CPUs are perhaps 'serviceable' for this generation.
BurnOutBrighter
Banned
Compromise: 900p at 45fps.
That was before I saw Ryse, destiny, infamous, KZSF, WD. For me it's already a generation ahead.
When you're being expected to pony up $60 to get the game on release, it's understandable that folks want to get a good look at what they're going to be putting their money toward.
That said, it'd be nice if they were more understanding of a game being in development means that previews are naturally going to show warts. I vastly prefer this over CG trailers that are of little representation of the final product, but at the same time I'm a lot more wiling to give leeway to these kinds of previews.
I'd rather have companies just STFU until a few months before launch, and show me proper looks at the game. Like what Rome Total War 2 is doing; it's in a glorious state, and the devs make well-sized videos showing off features of the game.
Though not really relevant to something like Battlefield that expects 64 player games with all that prettiness technology; they gotta do the stress testing somehow.
Not worth the larger p-ness.
Roland1979
Junior Member
I didn't spin anything junior, good start by the way, keep up that attitude. It was a explanation for a situation. And if i had to choose i would prefer more frame rates over resolution. They should have stuck to 30 fps? I assume you don't really play competitively. Typical to define next gen into resolution. Not to mention no one ever mentions sound. Don't buy it if you don't like it. Your name is so fitting by the way.
This might help since I was going back and forth between the PC and PS4 version. My 6970 might not do all max settings at 60FPS but I think it might still be better. I just wish the beta would launch so I could make up my mind. I don't absolutely need 60FPS but it'd be nice!
It's fucking hard being a PC and console gamer. I don't have any allegiances and I go where the game will be the best experience for me or where I think I might have buddies to play with. That's why it's hard with BF4.
It's fucking hard being a PC and console gamer. I don't have any allegiances and I go where the game will be the best experience for me or where I think I might have buddies to play with. That's why it's hard with BF4.
SapientWolf
Trucker Sexologist
64 players means they can have large levels and still keep a high player density. Which is crucial for a franchise that's focused on large scale warfare since its inception. 60fps means that they can boast fast paced infantry combat without the judder or input lag associated with lower framerates. EA's main drive is to make CoD redundant and that's not gonna happen at 30fps.
Cave Johnson
Member
LOL. BF3 on ultra was great looking but not "Next-gen" looking. And yes, any game that bi-generational release would be considered X-gen. I don't get carried away with overblown post-processing effects.
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
BF3 looks very much Next Gen maxed out on Ultra on PC.
But yeah, we will see games that look better overall on PS4 later in its lifetime. (Not IQ though)
shinobi602
Member
Definitely.
cobragt4001
Banned
LOL, you really think you know how good bf3 looks by looking at youtube huh? You know if you look at bf3 on the ps3 on youtube, it won't look much different than a pc video of bf3 on youtube. I thought the same as you.....before I build my PC and man bf3 running at ultra settings at 60fps is very much next gen as far as graphics go. Now I'd say the assets could have been better, some textures don't look as good as others but when you're playing it in person and not focused on every small detail, bf3 looks amazing.
I will post what I posted in another thread
People are forgetting several things
1) KZ:SHadowFall is ONLY being developed on 1 platform, therefore only 1 platform needs to be concentrated on
BF4 is being developed for 5 platforms? (PC,PS4,ONE,PS3,360)
That is A LOT of work and you can't expect a launch title to be properly optimized for PS4, plus they have budgets/time lines to meet and who knows how much time they had to work on each platform.
2) You can get away with poor/lack of optimization on PC, as high-end PC hardware has enough grunt to compensate for this, thus still making it look great and perform great.
PS4 hardware really doesn't have enough grunt to compensate for lack of optimization, therefore can impact the way it looks and performs very easily if not properly optimized and unfortunately this is the reason for the PS4 version - lack of optimization due to reasons above
You will probably see better optimization for mulitplatform PS4 games when
1) PS3/360 phase out
2) PS4 gets a bigger install base
The cost/profit benefits just aren't worth for publishers spending more $$$ on PS4 when it has a smaller install base.
People are forgetting several things
1) KZ:SHadowFall is ONLY being developed on 1 platform, therefore only 1 platform needs to be concentrated on
BF4 is being developed for 5 platforms? (PC,PS4,ONE,PS3,360)
That is A LOT of work and you can't expect a launch title to be properly optimized for PS4, plus they have budgets/time lines to meet and who knows how much time they had to work on each platform.
2) You can get away with poor/lack of optimization on PC, as high-end PC hardware has enough grunt to compensate for this, thus still making it look great and perform great.
PS4 hardware really doesn't have enough grunt to compensate for lack of optimization, therefore can impact the way it looks and performs very easily if not properly optimized and unfortunately this is the reason for the PS4 version - lack of optimization due to reasons above
You will probably see better optimization for mulitplatform PS4 games when
1) PS3/360 phase out
2) PS4 gets a bigger install base
The cost/profit benefits just aren't worth for publishers spending more $$$ on PS4 when it has a smaller install base.
I posted this in the other thread, but posting it here will increase my chance of receiving an answer so on the topic of optimization for PS4 versions, I question just how much optimization specific to the platform is really needed. Both it and the Xbox One use x86 CPUs and PC-derived GPUs, so would it not be quite simple to directly port a well-optimized PC version and by extension, have well-optimized console versions?
FeiRR
Banned
I play Battlefield competitively. They should've stayed with 30 FPS. If you don't like my opinion, I'm fine with that. Just remember that calling people "Juniors" and laughing at their nicknames isn't the way to go here.
To be completely fair BF3 on consoles didn't look all that different either outside of the IQ and textures (in fact even on PC there's little to differentiate between medium an ultra). Battlefield looks this good because of the lighting which carries over to the console version almost unchanged, and the shaders aren't all that much downgraded either. It isn't like other games like Witcher 2, Crysis 3, Farcry 3 or Metro Last Light (all of which are better looking games) where the console versions are pared back in effects, lighting model, and shaders by a considerable margin, so much that it isn't even funny.
Also BF3 leaves a lot to be desired in poly count, assets, post processing and realistic effects (like water movements and reflections which are poorer than most console games, including BFBC2 itself) to be called equal to next gen already.
cobragt4001
Banned
If the PC is the lead platform then it's hard to say. The consoles aren't horribly underpowered but when you look at what studios like Dice use to develop their games, really high end PC's with maybe quad gpu setups then it's best to stay neutral on your expectations on the console versions.
cobragt4001
Banned
Huh have you seen BF3 on pc in person? Sorry but even BF3 at medium settings kills the console counterparts, honestly I don't think you've seen BF3 on pc in person.