You could have faster and more precise "camera" and player movement while still having the player seeing clearly (very little blurriness).
[Allegedly Leaked]Battlefield 4 Sticks 720P/60 FPS on Next-Gen Consoles
- Thread starter Bigduo209
- Start date
You could have faster and more precise "camera" and player movement while still having the player seeing clearly (very little blurriness).
Games would clearly look much better with over 2x the resolution.
720p today is nextgens 1080p.The prettiest sure are not 60fps
The benefits of higher frame rate and lower latency are evident and are undeniable AND the benefits of higher resolution and higher detail are evident and equally undeniable.
To synthesize:
-If BF 4 will run at 720p 60fps then it will have lower input lag (more responsive controls) and higher temporal resolution and players benefit form this.
-If BF 4 will run at 1080p 30fps then it will have higher input lag (less responsive controls) but higher image resolution and level of detail which is beneficial for the player as well.
Now given that we are discussing about BF 4 on console it is safe to say that no player will have have to worry about another player having lower input lag because everyone will play with the same input lag whether BF 4 will run at 30fps or 60fps.
Also it is safe to say that for DICE 30fps is not inappropriate for the BF experience/gameplay otherwise they would have opted for 60fps for BF 3 on consoles like COD does...of course this would have meant to renounce something else but DICE didn't do it.
To conclude BF 4 would undoubtedly benefit from 60fps but does it need 60fps to be playable/engaging/funny/enjoyable: the answer as BF 3 on PS3 & 360 proves, is NO.
BF 3 is funny, engaging, enjoyable and playable at 30fps and nothing suggest that BF 4 at 1080p 30fps would not be equally enjoyable.
To synthesize:
-If BF 4 will run at 720p 60fps then it will have lower input lag (more responsive controls) and higher temporal resolution and players benefit form this.
-If BF 4 will run at 1080p 30fps then it will have higher input lag (less responsive controls) but higher image resolution and level of detail which is beneficial for the player as well.
Now given that we are discussing about BF 4 on console it is safe to say that no player will have have to worry about another player having lower input lag because everyone will play with the same input lag whether BF 4 will run at 30fps or 60fps.
Also it is safe to say that for DICE 30fps is not inappropriate for the BF experience/gameplay otherwise they would have opted for 60fps for BF 3 on consoles like COD does...of course this would have meant to renounce something else but DICE didn't do it.
To conclude BF 4 would undoubtedly benefit from 60fps but does it need 60fps to be playable/engaging/funny/enjoyable: the answer as BF 3 on PS3 & 360 proves, is NO.
BF 3 is funny, engaging, enjoyable and playable at 30fps and nothing suggest that BF 4 at 1080p 30fps would not be equally enjoyable.
I guess it partly depends if you're playing with a mouse or a controller. I'm playing MP3 at 1080p , max DX11 everything in full 3D godliness and I'd be surprised if I'm pushing much past 30fps most of the time. But with a control pad that's 100% fine. If I were playing with a mosue though I can imagine at times the responsiveness would be a little annoying. Then again, I wouldn't be suprised if I'm dropping below 30fps now and then.
F*cking worth it though!
I think DICE's goal for BF4 is to be more enjoyable than BF3.
(((interference)))
Veteran
I think most people will agree that 720p60 is preferable to 1080p30 - for a MP focused game like BF at least.
Whether they should cut back visuals to achieve 1080p60 is another question though.
Before all the framerate vs res discussion took over the thread, we were discussing whether the PS4 should be able to run BF3 at 1080p60 on Ultra (or near Ultra) settings, I think thought it could, but SB disagreed.
What do you guys think?
Whether they should cut back visuals to achieve 1080p60 is another question though.
Before all the framerate vs res discussion took over the thread, we were discussing whether the PS4 should be able to run BF3 at 1080p60 on Ultra (or near Ultra) settings, I think thought it could, but SB disagreed.
What do you guys think?
How
Changing disks adds some much needed variety to the gameplay!
Delta9 said:Games would clearly look much better with over 2x the resolution.
720p today is nextgens 1080p.The prettiest sure are not 60fps
You missed the point.
Of course higher resolution with everything else equal is better than lower resolution.
The point is that with 2x the resolution, graphics have to be scaled back. The most successful games on consoles out this generation went for lower res, but more graphical effect. 1080p in itself doesn't really give you anything. Running quake 3 at 4k res doesn't change the fact that the game would still look dated
I do play FPS on consoles, but on 30fps games I never get completely used to the issue of always feeling I'm just behind the action and watching rather than being there. There's also the commonly related issue of aggressive motion blur at lower frame rates that is completely un-natural and quite destructive to the image.
I actually think the issue extends beyond twitch based FPS, as I found Oblivion at 40 ~ 50 fps to be a far more immersive and enjoyable experience than Oblivion at 20 ~ 30 fps (it's the reason I upgraded from a 6800 GT to a 7900 GTX). Higher frame rates feel more natural and lower the psychological barrier between you and what's on screen. I don't think focus groups and limited feedback sessions would really allow you to pick up on this. But for players with 100s of hours of CoD under their belt how they "feel" when they're in a feedback loop with the virtual environment is, I'm sure, really important.
Don't forget Rage! Rage is really impressive. Thanks to its dynamic res it maintains fluidity at all times (and on the 360 I hardly noticed any resolution drops). I played it through 4 times off the bat, and I haven't done that with any other FPS other than perhaps Doom. I didn't even do that with Halo 3. I found everything from aiming at distance, to spinning quickly and punching something fast moving in the mouth, to just watching NPC animations, better. Everything was just ... better.
Yep, I applaud DICE too. Rallysport Challenge 2 with its 60 fps was amazing and is still my personal benchmark for driving games. I haven't been able to see a 30 fps driving game through since RSC II.
Design the games to hit 1080 before anything else.1080 alone is a huge upgrade and is immediately noticeable.
What games are you talking about? I doubt it was graphic effects that made them successful,more likely it was the game itself. I'm playing Crysis3 right now and for all it has it looks REALLY bad from low resolution alone and that is much closer to 720 than 720 to 1080 will be.
You do realize there's actual science done on this. It does not back up this opinion (at least for most console/TV users)
Then why can we easily spot subhd games
I never trusted those who said 1080p made no difference,they had either poor eyesight or could never afford anything better.If you can't tell go to the eye doctor
And what is this distance you think most people are at? Do you think most people are American with a huge living room? I would think most gamers are playing in their bedroom and are not in a huge American size house.If you can't tell go to the eye doctor
The last statistics I saw put people 8-12ft away from a 40" display.
I get my eye's checked annually and my vision is 20-20 with prescription. I would say I can tell there is a difference between 720p and 1080p(I'm 10ft from a 55"), but I would never suggest it's the best use of gpu power.
So you admit can tell the difference at a distance which is likely double than your average gamer
And a smaller tv will have smaller pixels so should look even better I think.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
If you can't tell go to the eye doctor
I've run my blind resolution HDTV test with people that have better than 20/20 vision. They can't spot the difference between 720p and 1080p either at typical viewing distances on my 55" TV as long as I don't have text/UI on the screen. And before you ask, no my TV isn't set farther away than you would find it in a typical household because no one has complained about how far away it is because just about everyone's TV about the same distance away. And the ones that thought they could, had to admit that after this they weren't so sure.
That being said. Any game designed for 720p/60 will look better than a game designed for 1080p/60 when viewed on a typical HDTV (30-60") at typical living room viewing distances. Yes, some people have larger TVs and I suppose single people living in tiny apartments the size of a walk in closet may sit closer. But in general developers will be developing games for your typical/average household.
That doesn't mean some developers won't target 1080p just to get that checkbox out of the way so they can advertise it. But it also doesn't mean that the vast majority of gamers would even notice.
But the reality is you will always be able to do more to enhance the graphics and gameplay experience at 720p than you can at 1080p.
If this was about PC gaming, then yes, I'd certainly agree with you.
Regards,
SB
So you admit can tell the difference at a distance which is likely double than your average gamer
And a smaller tv will have smaller pixels so should look even better I think.
No I'm in the middle of the range of the average, but with a larger than average TV.
Smaller pixels further away are less noticeable.
I also said that I can tell there is a difference, not that the quality is dramatically improved by that increase. Text has a fairly noticeable difference, everything else not so mich.
Perhaps the controls on the next generation consoles are designed with low latency as a priority? If the controller latency is lowered and the console itself can tell the TV to get into low latency game mode then we could see that the decision to 60 FPS could pay off considerably more than with this generation.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
It'd be awesome if all shooters were 60 FPS, but it's not going to happen. Just like you can implement more graphical detail and goodies into a 720p game than you can a 1080p game, you can cram more graphical detail into a 30 FPS game than you can a 60 FPS game.
Except I'd be willing to bet that a lot more people will notice the difference between 60 FPS and 30 FPS in a fast paced shooter than would notice the difference between 720p and 1080p at typical living room viewing distances. And this considering that not everyone notices the differences between 60 FPS and 30 FPS.
Regards,
SB
