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

Apparently these are leaked screenshots (from GAF):
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=530253

http://www.abload.de/img/crashsite_1920x1080tycoz.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/close_1920x1080ube3l.jpg
http://www.abload.de/img/construction_1p_1920xu9uqk.jpg

 

Stable 30 FPS is achievable by capping the upper limit such that the game never exceeds 30 FPS. And then making sure that the lower limit rarely dips below 30 FPS. That's how it is done in games. The same can be done for 60 FPS games as well.

Your CPU and/or GPU then ends up being idle to some extent (or more accurately, not fully utilized) for most of the time, but the experience is generally better without drastic changes in FPS.

Regards,
SB

 

Well, I guess it all depends on whether a game engine and assets are taking a best case approach (average FPS is 30, might dip below) or worst case scenario (average FPS is over 30, never dips below). Former focused on graphics, latter focused on frame rate. Both appear the same until you hit a critical point in rendering when "shit hits the fan"

 

Capping the FPS isn't about appearance so much as it is about having a consistent frame rate so that your control input remains the same regardless of what is going on in game. Having control input be at greater than 40 hz and then dropping down to 20 hz leads to imprecise feeling controls. The same can be said it it goes from 60 hz and drops down to 35 hz. It's the inconsistency of the controls that is most bothersome. And to a lesser extent trying to visually respond to fast action if that fast action is varying in framerate significantly.

For casual titles it doesn't bother me. For fast paced shooters, however, it can be hugely distracting and frustrating. And it doesn't even have to be a shooter.

Just look sebbbi's comments with regards to Trials: Evolution. Low framerates (30 FPS) or fluctuating framerates would completely ruin the game since precise controls is key to being able to play the game as you constantly have to react to what is going on in game as well as having to correct your own movements constantly.

Regards,
SB

 

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U8HVQXkeU8U

 

BF 4 also is aid to use Frostbite 3 not Frostbite 2.5 as the article here says.

 

Well, there was never a FB2.5 so what they're calling 3 (prob for marketing reasons) is actually 2.5 realistically since it isn't a whole new overhaul like FB2 was but an evolution of the BF3 engine.

It'll be a similar relationship to BFBC2 and BFBC1 engines.

 

^^^
Yeah, good point.
You posted an article form The Guardian on the other BF 4 thread and DICE says that has been working on this version of Frostbite since 2011 so maybe for them there is enough to justify the "3" at end of the name...maybe.

Side note: do you think there is still room form "overhauls" or we are reaching a point in which engines can only become more sophisticated but not really evolve into something significantly new/different?

 

It looked great but to be honest it didn't really look that much different to Battlefield 3. I guess it's unrealistic to expect much more since they're still working with more or less the same hardware but I definitely wasn't as blown away as I was when I saw the first video of BF3. Diminishing returns kicking in hard I guess. That said, the destruction seemed like a big step up over BF3.

 

I agree with the diminishing returns thing. Its not that it doesn't look better, because it very much does. It just has less wow factor I think. Like special effects in movies are not that big a deal to me anymore honestly lol... They all look the same now in quality.

That said I think it was a great demo and they showed off a lot of what they wanted to do I think. Having vehicles more freely accessible in the Sp seems possible with the advent of next gen consoles too so everyone can get a more consistent experience. Let's just hope they have 64 players in next-gen console versions as well

 

720p60FPS? That's laughable for singleplayer.

Make it run 1080p30/60 for Singleplayer and do 60FPS for MP.

IMO I won't even bother with a MP game if it doesn't run at 60FPS stable.

I had enough of shitty framerates in Metal Gear Online 2 on PS3, where the game frequently droped to sub-20FPS once you had more than 10 players in a match.

In MP Responsiveness and fast framerates are absolutely vital.


In SP, I much prefer IQ over reponsiveness to a reasonable degree. If a game is meant to be cinematic then 1080p30 is perfectly fine. If a game in SP is like DMC then 60FPS is preferred.

 

What if singleplayer BF4 is not meant to be "cinematic" but fun?

 

So many have lost sight of this fact. Better to just make the game whatever resolution is best to deliver the most fun experience. It surely also helps that the games would look fantastic at 720p. I've never seen the benefit of targeting 1080p native on consoles over sticking with 720p native and doing more with the game.

 

For those of you with a 360, I'd recommend checking the dashboard for the 720p, 60fps version of the video. If they can get that kind of IQ (I don't care if it's "only" 720p, it's beautiful) running on Durango/PS4 at 60fps I'll be very, very happy. Hard to imagine how it would look at 30fps. Still holding out hope Carmack will blow us away with Doom 4 at 30fps. That game + Durango architecture could be pretty damn amazing.

 

That's because we have 7+ year old consoles, how can you make that judgement when the PS4/720 haven't released yet?

This is a silly argument because if you can do more @ 720p than 1080p we might aswell go 480p and get even moar!!!!

 

DICE said that the game demo ran at 3k resolution on a (very very) high end PC. That is also a very big part of the astounding looks of this trailer and unfortunately will never be achieved on consoles...so the answer is NO, you won't get this IQ on Durango/PS4 and YES you should care about resolution if you are interested in (such) IQ

 

I heard the rumor that with 120p resolution, next gen consoles devs will get close to 'teh avatar graphics'! Prepare for ultimate fun people!!!!!

 

Because 480p is sub hd. I thought that would be simple enough to understand. Very few can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Even a lot of hardcore gamers can't tell the difference. A lot of people thought Alan Wake looked amazing till they found out what the real resolution was at, and then all of a sudden reasons were practically invented on demand to explain why this game that so many people thought look amazing, now suddenly didn't.

There's a point to which resolution is just too low on consoles as powerful as the next xbox and ps4 and the gains that you'd get simply are countered by the resolution simply being way too low. Both machines can do impressive games at native 1080p, but both can almost assuredly do more at native 720p. I thought that was basically common sense? 720p is still very much a next gen sweet spot, particularly if developers are interested in 60fps.

 

To clarify, the IQ I was referring to was the 720p version on the 360 dashboard. It looks downright unbelievable in terms of IQ on my 720p tv in my bedroom. If there are fx in the gameplay demo that can't be done on PS4/Durango I didn't notice any. I guess polygon counts maybe? Tessellation should help with that in noticeable areas. Durango will leverage virtual textures by the sounds of it so texture res shouldn't be an issue either. Maybe worse AA/AF? I'd imagine both consoles are ok in that regard too. Is there anything specific you saw that seems unlikely to be in the console versions?

And I don't hold resolution as the end all, be all for IQ. There's more to it than that.