[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles

Would it be possible for devs to aim 1080p/30fps for SP and 720p/60fps for MP? Is it double the effort?

 

You can. And it's more effort, but no idea how much more effort.

To put it into perspective. Bungie had to target different graphics effects and levels for 4 player split screen multiplayer versus single player.

Crytek also has a different graphics effect target for multiplayer versus single player on consoles, although not due to targeting a higher FPS, but just to maintain FPS with more potentially going on in regards to players on screen and weapon effects/sounds.

But I imagine they could do something similar for varying levels of FPS. But I'm not sure why they would want to. If you get used to movement, aiming, and shooting having a certain fluidity in one mode, it would be jarring to the extreme if it wasn't the same in the other mode.

IF EA/DICE want to have a chance of dethroning COD as the king of console FPS, then they will have to have 60 fps as the target for both single player and multiplayer, IMO.

Regards,
SB

 

I think the fact that most people can't even tell that many AAA games run their games as low as 640p without people telling them is proof enough that 720p vs. 1080p is a moot point for most people. Could you tell with a static image or a photo? Sure. Can you tell with a moving image? It's a lot harder.

Even with text, I would bet that most people don't know that the Xbox 360 home screen is rendered at 720p even on a 1080p display. It's a moot point.

The ONLY time a game really should run at the highest resolution possible is 2D artwork, because you start running into the effects of not having 1:1 pixel ratios with images.

 

They should use dynamic resolution scaling, like Wipeout HD and Rage.
That'll be the best compromise, it'll be 720p minimum up to 1080p when the engine isn't being stressed.

 

Fixed it for ya...

Seriously, I have a friend who used play CS (not competitively). He would lower his resolution (like sebbbi's friend), to grain frame-rate...as I watch him and I tried his setup, but i didn't improved. For me nothing changed. The lowered resolution didn't make spotting out other player any harder. My aiming didn't improve. Anyway, I concur with Shifty...this is all very personal and everyone is going to be different.

However, if the resolution was to increase, will the game need to increase texture resolution also? Along with all the buffers? Would that impact the potential lost of larger maps and features? Well, maybe with 5-7GB, this might be a non-issue.

 

Name a single game on consoles that look pretty and is 1080p.

If doubling the res is such an amazing boost to graphics, why did all the best looking games run at 720p or lower? Resolution alone means nothing.

 

Sacred 2.

Tobias is B3D member T.B. and had an interview in DF about 1080p tec...if you are interested in reading it, here you go:

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-sacred-2-1080p-interview

 

I never, ever, said that 720p 60fps is not a positive thing.
Either way works for me and I simply said that I would prefer 1080p 30fps on PS4 because I have no problem whatsoever playing at 30fps.

Also I don't see how comparing MKB at 60fps vs controller 30fps is somehow fair an could in any way favor the latter.
The level of control and precision you have using mouse is not the same of analog sticks so on PS4 even at 60fps aiming in BF 4 will not be/feel the same as on PC with MKB; no doubt many MKB player will find that they have less control/precision on PS4 /DS4 even if BF 4 has minimum input lag just like on PC.

I know how important input lag and frame-rate are but individual reaction time, reflexes, tactical thinking, experience and skills will always matter more in PVP.
Having a sold frame and responsive controls are necessary conditions/requisites for palyability in every game but do not make you a good player.
I can't honestly say that running 30fps makes games unplayable, I really can't.
60fps is ideal but 30fps fits as playable.

Well it depends.
If they lower the frame rate to 30fps but increase resolution to 1080p then I suppose their approach would be similar to Guerrilla Games: high IQ on all the line but lower pref. A "qui pro quo" no doubt but not a "net loss".
If they keep 60fps and increase resolution to 1080p then I would expect some compromises to be made on overall IQ: I would expect less eye candy for sure.
Personally I don't think BF 4 was designed with more than 4GB of RAM in mind; my guess is that only Sony Worldwide Studios knew about the 8GB of GDDR5.
Many third party devs were genuinely surprised about the 8GB and even if DICE/BF have a good relationship with Sony, they could as well not know about it.
Some rumors also said that Xbox has 5GB dedicated to gaming and IF it's true then I would understand using only 4GB that was the common ground before PS4 official specs reveal.
Also if I am not mistaken BF 3 recommends 4GB on PC so I don't see DICE going up to 5-8GB yet as the minimum requirement.
Level design, scale, IMO should not be affected negatively if DICE choose 1080p 30fps, but I can't tell for sure.

Criterion managed to set input lag at 83ms for Need For Speed at 30fps.
Now I don't know if this can be done with every engine or for every game, but if it was possible then we could have 30fps game with input lag close to 60fps games. (DF says: Most 60FPS games have a 66.67ms latency)

 

If they can get the control lag down to 2.5 frames, why can't they get the control lag down to 40 ms for 60 fps games?

 

I don' know!
I am not a Criterion developer and I don't have access to their proprietary engine so I can't really tell, I am sorry
All I know is that they managed to reduce input lag at 30fps which is interesting if the "technique" can be used by/on other engines/games/devs as well.

 

The camera is first-person, so what you'd have is better visual feedback in motion but not any change in game mechanics (unless the game is changed to a fast-paced run-and-gun game). If you aim for a higher resolution, you can use a wider FOV and have the player sit closer for a more immersive experience with greater peripheral vision providing advantages in spotting enemy and reading the terrain, so it's not like 60 fps is a definite win over 30 fps at higher res. Both bring gains/cons in equal measure. Neither is intrinsically changing the game in terms of rule set or how it's played, unless they increase player rotation speed and allow manic run-and-gun like Unreal Tournament.

 

Not everyone must ape COD, the 30fps experience of BF3 is just fine on current gen consoles. A franchise must retain its own identity to stand out. BF4 at 60fps 720p would loose its graphics charm so that's definitely one major loss. I understand a competitive MP may feel better with 60fps but I really don't think people cares about that for the SP especially it's just a 5-6hours ride.

 

720p60 for MP and 1080p30 for the SP campaign sounds like a good compromise, though I imagine they'd just stick with the same resolution and framerate for both.

TBH after the SP for BF3, I much rather them not bother with a SP and put that time and effort into making more MP maps. It would be easier for BF3 player, who are used to 20+ maps, to mover over to BF4 if it had ~15+ right at launch.

 

Yeah I can't see them go the extra mile either. But really if you design the game at 1080p/30 first and then cut the framebuffer down to 720p and optimize the texture, shader etc a bit in order to have 60fps, it wouldn't be that hard, would it?

 

I could be wrong but I assume that the switch from 720p60 to 1080p30 would be dependant on how your game taxes the hardware. Resolution is more fillrate and memory dependant while frame rate can be any number of things. For what they are trying to accomplish with the MP, it may just be easier to go with 720p60 with the whole game. Considering how often the PC version of games share assets with the console versions, I'm not sure it would be worth the effort to create higher quality assets and effects just for the SP.

 

There seems there could be a large incentive for developers to 'try' matching Call Of Duty on this metric given the large sales advantage of that game. There is an additional benefit of having cheaper art assets if they are targeting a smaller leap in visual performance and possibly an easier port to previous generation consoles as well given they would have the opportunity to lower resolution and framerate.

 

I beg to differ, it's 30 fps when there's not much going on - once tank's start plowing through buildings, jets crash into copters, mortars start landing, buildings collapse etc the framerate takes a nose dive, and responsiveness and playability (and ergo your ability to survive in such chaotic situations) also goes down.

60 fps means that even when the engine is being stressed it'll still run at 40+ fps and playability will be largely unaffected.

 

Yeah but some other 30fps games still retain that smooth 30fps average even under pressure. I guess that goes into how well your engine is optimized or coded.

 

No really now the objection to 30fps in BF 4 is: "30fps is bad becse you can't maintain it when the going gets tough, when there are a lot things on screen".
Since when games can't have a solid and consistent frame-rate AND be playable in stressful situations?

 

Or how heavily the artists and game designers stress it. The best engine in the world will drop frames if you expect too much of it.