Battlefield 4 official discussion/thread. [PS4,XO,PS3,X360]

[London Geezer]

I'd be extremely, gloriously happy playing a game rendering at 4k with 1080p output

 

[RudeCurve]

I'd be extremely, gloriously happy playing a game rendering at 4k with 1080p output

Me too using supersampling AA, especially if the assets are significantly improved as well. When I look at what Laa-Yosh has been working on (Halo 4 and AC) it's difficult not to dream about how good games would look if more emphasis was put on assets instead of resolution.

 

[Cjail]

Is it true that BF 4 has realistic magazine management and not ammo pools?

 

[Davros]

Is it true that BF 4 has realistic magazine management and not ammo pools?

Arma 3 has that, if realism is what you crave

 

[Delta9]

The world isn't made of static images. It's in motion. The experience of games is intended to be in motion. If D3 was a text adventure with static art, you'd have a point, but it's not. Nor is BF4. These games are intended to be played in motion. And if you're not happy with that, then on a technical level, if a game implements something like temporal AA, the static shots won't represent what the user experiences. Likewise, post AA can look great on a static image but ghastly in motion due to pixel crawl - the static image isn't anything like the 'true graphics' in that case.

Games are all about tricks and cheats to make them look good. Tricks and cheats reliant on the game moving are every bit as legitimate as tricks on static images. People should stop wasting their time and everyone else using static images to evaluate a game's appearance to the end user.
They're great to evaluate the engine and techniques, but the user experience is derived from the game in motion and that's the only sensible reference point.

I don't agree and certainly not in this case. A static image gives you time to evaluate the whole picture because you're not engrossed with the gameplay.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Had to replay the last mission to unlock the P90...oh boy: while the SP is ok-ish in general...the last mission is such a pain to play...

WHAT?!??! Why would DICE put the best gun unlock in SP T_T !!!! and here I was levelling up fast to see when I get the P90 ! WTH DICE, I don't want to play the campaign Iwant to play Battlefield ! Damn you , wat a stupid decision !

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Despite the super high resolution I still see some aliasing which basically confirms what we all already know....resolution is not the answer for better looking games....it's the assets. I think PC games will always suffer this "bottleneck"...and why AAA console exclusives at much lower resolution still look better than the "best" PC games.

That....very weird to read. do you have a 4K monitor? You are watching a 4K video on a 1080p monitor and seeing aliasing ! It shouldn't be there.....

anyways, I see except for Billy and me no one here is actually playing Battlefield 4 ! Its a freaking fun game , get out of this thread and PLAY !


EDIT: But i have to say that the Levelution doesn't come into play at all. The triggers are so far away from actual gaeplay that the events never get triggered at all. and why would one waste his ammo on specially triggerring it at all ! The triggers should have been in places where they get damaged due to normal mayhem(choke points) and get triggered over the course of a match automatically due to fights around them.

 

[Cjail]

Arma 3 has that, if realism is what you crave

Yeah, I know, but I wanted to know if BF 4 has that as well.

A static image gives you time to evaluate the whole picture because you're not engrossed with the gameplay.

It's also a great way to spot defects and imperfections that you will hardly/unlikely notice in rel life viewing.
Evaluating a game using static pictures will always result in a vitiated judgment.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

a funny one there but you can see that so many of these levollutions have no chance of happening during normal gameplay.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Yeah, I know, but I wanted to know if BF 4 has that as well.

I'll check next time I play. I haven't paid attention till now.

 

[Cjail]

I'll check next time I play. I haven't paid attention till now.

Thanks.
Though maybe it is only in hardcore modes in MP.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I don't agree and certainly not in this case. A static image gives you time to evaluate the whole picture because you're not engrossed with the gameplay.

You don't have to be engrossed in gameplay. I'm saying use videos instead of static images. You can scrutinise a video every bit as much as an image, but the video (as long as up to speed) shows you what you will experience when viewing the game in motion, unlike a static screenshot that is misleading.

Another example - old-school flickering shadows. Before alpha blended shadows, consoles would alternate on and off for shadows and sprites to make them semi-transparent (also when invulnerable). A static screenshot would either show a solid shadow or none. In what way is that representative of what the end user experiences? It's completely misleading.

And we can look at hypothetical cases going forwards. What if a game renders at 240 fps with a jittered camera to provide AA? It won't need AA per frame as the integral over time will provide that naturally. And motion blur. So you'd have a screenshot that show no AA or motion blur, but the player would definitely experience these things. Hell, photography has a significant aspect that's about capturing what the eye can't in a still. A photograph of a hummingbird showing its wings isn't any use in understanding what the end user perceives.

Static shots are good for understanding the engine. They are no good for understanding how people will perceive the game. If jaggies are visible in the static screenshots, they may not be in motion, and importantly when people say, "I can't see them," pointing to static screenshots and saying, "There they are! Loads of jaggies!" is failing to understand the differences between images and video. And the key point is we no longer need static images. We have video! So let's use the video to talk about what we can perceive in games instead of screenshots. Use the screenshots only for technical analysis like pixel counting.

 

[Delta9]

You don't have to be engrossed in gameplay. I'm saying use videos instead of static images. You can scrutinise a video every bit as much as an image, but the video (as long as up to speed) shows you what you will experience when viewing the game in motion, unlike a static screenshot that is misleading.

Another example - old-school flickering shadows. Before alpha blended shadows, consoles would alternate on and off for shadows and sprites to make them semi-transparent (also when invulnerable). A static screenshot would either show a solid shadow or none. In what way is that representative of what the end user experiences? It's completely misleading.

And we can look at hypothetical cases going forwards. What if a game renders at 240 fps with a jittered camera to provide AA? It won't need AA per frame as the integral over time will provide that naturally. And motion blur. So you'd have a screenshot that show no AA or motion blur, but the player would definitely experience these things. Hell, photography has a significant aspect that's about capturing what the eye can't in a still. A photograph of a hummingbird showing its wings isn't any use in understanding what the end user perceives.

Static shots are good for understanding the engine. They are no good for understanding how people will perceive the game. If jaggies are visible in the static screenshots, they may not be in motion, and importantly when people say, "I can't see them," pointing to static screenshots and saying, "There they are! Loads of jaggies!" is failing to understand the differences between images and video. And the key point is we no longer need static images. We have video! So let's use the video to talk about what we can perceive in games instead of screenshots. Use the screenshots only for technical analysis like pixel counting.

But you can still miss things in video.It would be a major pain to go video to video to see if one is missing certain things like a tree and for that reason alone will always be used.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But you can still miss things in video.It would be a major pain to go video to video to see if one is missing certain things like a tree and for that reason alone will always be used.

No-one said don't use images. I've only said don't use images as evidence as what you'll experience when playing in motion. You have pointed to jaggies in a still as evidence that they will be visible in game, but if people watching 60 fps video are saying they aren't seeing them, that's a far better reference than yours and there's no strength to your reference material. A static image is not indicative of what people experience seeing the game in motion and should not be used to talk about what quality people will experience in motion. Again, I point to MLAA. LBP2 stills were very crisp, but in motion there's a lot of edge crawling and shimmer. The static images suggest no aliasing would be visible, but the game in motion is quite different.

That's the one limit of static images. For everything else they are valid material; just don't use them to talk about what people will perceive when seeing the game in motion. For that, use videos.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

The Second Assault pack includes four ”fan-favorite” Battlefield 3 maps redesigned using the Frostbite 3 engine. The maps making the jump are: Operation Firestorm, Operation Metro, Caspian Border, and Gulf of Oman. These maps have been ”enhanced to include new multiplayer features from Battlefield 4,” according to DICE.

Second Assault will be available at launch for Xbox One, on November 22, as a timed exclusive. Release dates for PlayStation and PC versions are yet to be announced.

So,second assault is not an XBone exclusive, everyone will get it.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

Thanks.
Though maybe it is only in hardcore modes in MP.

In normal mode, it behaves like a normal game, you don't lose the bullets in the clip. haven't played Hardcore yet.

 

[RenegadeRocks]

PS4 MP review fro LevelCap. PLaying the same maps on the ps3, the smoothness of the ps4 is evident even this video is encoded in 30fps. I want a PS4 NOW !!! Sony !

 

[ultragpu]

a funny one there but you can see that so many of these levollutions have no chance of happening during normal gameplay.

I always thought the so called "Levolution" is a cheap gimmick, it's just a precomputed action event triggered by the player. It's not real physics, KZ2 already done 5 years ago albeit with a smaller scale. I don't see what's so special about it.

 

[RudeCurve]

Levolution changes the whole battlefield so you have to change strategies when/if it happens...that's what's special about it. It has nothing to do with dynamic or precomputed physics.

 

[ultragpu]

Well, UC3's boat level done it already.