[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles
- Thread starter Bigduo209
- Start date
720p is unacceptable in 2013/14, there are phones running at 1080p now.
I'm sure you'll be checking digital foundry often so you can properly direct your outrage at the games running below full hd. And the display on a phone might be 1080p but they are about a decade behind consoles in rendering power.
Even really old simple games can look can look pretty darn good at a higher resolution.IMO, it would be the bigger standout than any other graphics features could do.
I don't think your opinion is very well informed, but it's your opinion you do with it as you please. Fortunately the people at DICE probably have better informed people making the decisions.
30fps was fine for 99% of games this gen.720p is so outdated its practically discontinued as a resolution for tvs.
720P (or less) was also fine for 99% of the games this gen. I certainly hope we can do better than current gen games rendered at 1080. Consoles should provide a decent enough scalar that the native resolution of your tv shouldn't be a hindrance.
It's hard for me to understand why people continue to think that the best use of resources is an increase in resolution. Do the environments look that realistic? Is the only thing holding them back from being truly immersive your ability to resolve a dot at 10ft? You'd feel like you were truly there but you can resolve individual pixels? Or is it that the only thing you actually know about rendered graphics is that 1080 is more than 720 and you know more is better so you want that?
That's because the consoles are over half a decade old and most didn't even have a 720p tv.
(((interference)))
Veteran
Higher resolutions definitely dramatically improve the looks of games relying on 2D artwork.
For 3D games, not so much.
I sit 6 -7 feet away from my 46" screen so am in the region where 1080p starts to bring improvements over 720p. So wouldn't mind the extra sharpness and detail afforded by 1080p (for a game like BF it'd help with spotting enemies at a distance).
However, given the choice between 720p60 and 1080p30 I'd definitely choose the former as one of the biggest issues on BF3 on current gen consoles are the frame drops when vehicles start crashing/exploding, buildings collapse etc.
Running at 60fps will mean the framerate will be perfectly playable even when everything is going to sh*t and you'd be better able to pull off some crazy feats of survival in the midst of the destruction going around you.
For 3D games, not so much.
I sit 6 -7 feet away from my 46" screen so am in the region where 1080p starts to bring improvements over 720p. So wouldn't mind the extra sharpness and detail afforded by 1080p (for a game like BF it'd help with spotting enemies at a distance).
However, given the choice between 720p60 and 1080p30 I'd definitely choose the former as one of the biggest issues on BF3 on current gen consoles are the frame drops when vehicles start crashing/exploding, buildings collapse etc.
Running at 60fps will mean the framerate will be perfectly playable even when everything is going to sh*t and you'd be better able to pull off some crazy feats of survival in the midst of the destruction going around you.
Hecatoncheires
Newcomer
So does no one has any idea what to think of this double scanning of frames to reduce input lag and increase image smoothness of a game rendered with 30FPS?
Billy Idol
Legend
You are wrong. Nothing to do with checkbox, read my posts more carefully before howling.
I don't need resolution per se, no checkbox. But I wrote that in my experience on my gaming PC, I always did choose 1080p over higher settings. Personal experience, no checkboxing. I also agree with Scott and Robert that it surely depends on the game, no checkbox, no stuck in my head, written in my post above.
I would be indeed disappointed with 720p BF4, because in my experience (when I had a gtx 480) in BF3 MP you clearly benefit from the higher resolution, so I reduced settings to play in 1080p, because of the large draw distance in most of the levels (except close quarter dlc). But you are right (only) in this single point that we should just wait and see.
This is my last post on this matter, as you seem to be quite aggressive and somewhat angry and I certainly don't want to waste my rare spare time with such discussions.
Billy Idol
Legend
Thanks for the link. It is quite interesting. I do naively believe/wish that the new BF is so (destruction) physics heavy that we are more CPU bound and resolution does not dictate performance that much. Btw, I would perfectly accept it, if they'd reduce the graphics load with 720p resolution and use some spare GPU cycles for some physics computations to match or outdo the PC physics.
MS might demand parity but PS3 versions always have better surround support so I don' t see how actual parity will ever be possible.
BF 3 on PS3 is actually "better" than on 360 for this very reason.
Also there are some rare occasion in which PS3 version is better overall and really MS didn't stop those games form being released or sued the developer/publisher.
Tomb Raider is one of those games.
Also Vanquish, Lords of Shadow, Dead Space 2 & 3, Dark Souls comes to mind.
BF 3 on PS3 is actually "better" than on 360 for this very reason.
Also there are some rare occasion in which PS3 version is better overall and really MS didn't stop those games form being released or sued the developer/publisher.
Tomb Raider is one of those games.
Also Vanquish, Lords of Shadow, Dead Space 2 & 3, Dark Souls comes to mind.
Last edited by a moderator:
i think all do this.
it's something like, if you give ms/sony/nintendo a port, it either must be day and date with other versions, or contain some sort of "exclusive content". one of the two. so six months late is allowed, as long as you throw us an additional level or what have you. the normal marketing stuff.
But for all those saying MS mandated PS3 multiplats be inferior, I bet suddenly that policy doesnt exist now that it's expected PS4 to be more powerful...suddenly those tinfoil hatters will be touting the PS4's superior multiplats (that arent supposed to be possible if what they said is true)
Too be clear, talking about graphics here.
What do you mean?
MS can sign contract of exclusivity for DLC or content (and Sony and Nntendo did it as as well), but surely can't pay a dev/publisher to not target PS3/WiiU exclusive features (DS 3 motion sensor, PS Move, PS Vita, Eye Toy, WiiU pad) just because 360 doesn't have them.
And Nintendo and Sony can't stipulate a contract with a dev/publisher not to include Kinect support in future games.
Sony, MS and Nintendo surely can ask for parity but as log as there are hardware limitations/differences 100% parity won't be possible.
Each console surely has its strengths and weaknesses and luckily we had a good number of games that are equally good on both PS3 & 360, but purposely leave a console behind in therms of IQ, perf, or features is not acceptable especially if there are no hardware limitation to hider you...at least for me.
Last edited by a moderator:
Publisher can do that but not platform holders.
Crysis3 is not native 720p on 360 and has poor frame rate BUT MS stop it from begin released.
AFAIK no game was denied approval by Sony MS or Nintendo and then never was released due not reaching "quality standards".
Platform holders also get royalties for percentage for every third-party game sold (EG says royalties are around 20-30%) so at all effects stopping game form being released means losings money even if you are not the publisher/dev.
For them is better to allow the release of a poor port and get 30% then not get anything all (Skyrim)
And 360 might have 70+ million user, so PS3, but it's safe to say that only few read DF and are really aware of the "state" of a port.
Dis-information rules the industry.
Last edited by a moderator:
Like this: (Cjail said:
)Royalties are paid during disc fabrication. Only MS/Sony have the rights to print the discs, and there's something like £7 (most recent estimate I've seen) per disc printed, regardless of whether those discs sell or not. Obviosuly download titles will work with some fee, the details of which I know not, but my expectation is a flat fee rather than a percentage.
It's certainly possible for a console company to refuse publication for a game and there have been publisher controls in the past. One reason why Sony was so successful is they'd publisher almost anything while Nintendo were being fickle, as I understand it. A console company could try and control the publishers by threatening not to allow games, coercing the publisher/developer into making changes. But push too hard and all the publishers could ditch your platform and end your business. So in reality a common mutual ground is found, all sides appreciating they are codependent and having to make allowances. There will be anticompetitive laws that could be needed, but in reality it'll just be business as usual, with publishers making choices to try and get best revenues and keep the console companies happy, and vice versa.
I remember that publishers couldn't charge for content that was available in other versions of the game. I remember this happened with Rainbow Six: Vegas 1 or 2 (not sure). The ps3 verison was release later with additional level(s). Ubi put the levels on 360 maketplace. They got pulled within a few days and reintroduced for free.
So i think Its a content policy, not a quality or feature policy. It may include features as well, as long as the 360 hardware supports the feature.
So i think Its a content policy, not a quality or feature policy. It may include features as well, as long as the 360 hardware supports the feature.
