djskribbles
Legend
It won't be 720p, but even if it were, that's not sub-HD.
Battlefield 4 official discussion/thread. [PS4,XO,PS3,X360]
- Thread starter Cyan
- Start date
I did see link on GAF a two bit website (Chiphell I think) report way back in March that talked about BF4 being 720/60 on next gen console. At the time I dismissed it but now it seems kinda accurate huh.
We've discussed that to death but at E3 Peter Moore said it was "PC to next gen spec", while stressing the game would really look like that on console/XB1. Something along those lines.
I actually dont think they should have problems running the campaign looking that good. You can run BF3 (which looks next gen on PC) at 30 FPS at 1080P at ~highest settings on PC on the likes of a 7770 or 7850. That's before console optimization. Granted I guess 30 isn't 60, but I dont know if they're aiming for 60 in campaign.
StevieP at GAF has been making the point though that multiplayer is a whole lot more demanding, and you cant actually run multiplayer BF3 1080/60 on PC on something like a 7850 without dialing back settings.
Has EA DICE announced what native resolution BF4 for Xbox One will run in? Based on the graphical quality of Drive Club versus Forza 5, it seems Xbox One inclusion of hardware tiling (as opposed to software tiling) seems to make a difference, despite having a gpu with inferior peak computing performance.
Same here, he isn't saying that the game is going to run at 1080p either, but it sounds good to me that it can be better than 720p.
During the next generation we are going to live in a syllogism. :smile: -where the middle isn't excluded from the conclusion-
It is going to be a truly, truly fascinating generation technically wise, imho, in order to compare how games run on different systems.
I expect a lot of games running at 1080p, but also lots of games running at intermediate resolutions -within the 720p / 1080p range-.
I expect a lot of games to be running at dynamic resolutions. I also expect to see a lot of redefinition of 1080p to mean anything that's above 720p (1280x720) though mostly for anything using close to 1920 across to 1080 down scaled up to 1920x1080 (for instance 1440x1080 or 1920x800).
I've spent the bulk of my ps360 gaming on a 46" during the last 6 years and only just recently upgraded to a Bravia 65" in preparation of fullHD nextgen console gaming. And I did make the right choice seeing 99% of launch titles from either PS4 or Xbox One are 1080p native. So BF4 is really a huge disappointment to me comparing to the rest.
Now if it's higher than 720p then I hope it's towards the 1080p spectrum, but whatever I already have some other things covered for my 1080p shooter goodness
.djskribbles
Legend
Let's not bring other games into this. You're comparing two unfinished games with very limited footage. Plus I think it's subjective which game looks better.
Last edited by a moderator:
It seems like what's going on, most publishers are mostly working with dev kits and running games through PC at console-level specs. They've been doing it all in an effort to hit the ground running, just in time to get their games out for the new consoles' launch window.
So we've been probably seeing both PCs and actual console hardware running demos at conventions for some time now. Most dev kits are probably at dev studios while mostly copying/transferring and running demos on PCs at showcase events.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
except for KZ Shadow fall, which was shown on the ps4 and demoed live even the first time even though it had a fatal bug in it( as GG didn't want a repeat of previous gen) we can't be sure the rest is running on consoles or not.
Billy Idol
Legend
That is true. That is why I said it depends. So solution to this problem is 1080p/60Hz, right?
or maybe adopting adaptive resolution? keep most of the time 1080p 60fps, drop to 720p or lower on super crazy moments
Billy Idol
Legend
Maybe...or just let the devs make their decision and hope that they know best.
If you pare back the graphics and destructibility, maybe, depending on what the bottleneck is. People are comparing BF4 to KZ, but the latter has no environment destruction from what I've seen. It's not a like for like comparison and people's expectations are unrealistic because they're not factoring in what the games are doing - just going by some raw numbers.
I can accept a desire to express a want for higher resolutions, but the game comparisons need to be left out of it, comparing two unfinished games with different requirements, one a cross-platform and the other an exclusive...it's a pointless exercise.
The whole notion of resolutions is pretty much dead anyway. Deferred rendering sees lots of buffers of lots of different resolutions. I recall an old topic about this where I talked about 'opaque geometry' resolution. Both consoles have hardware to support native 1080p UIs on top of whatever assortment of mixed buffer resolutions underneath. AA is nigh impossible to quantify with mixed modes and post-effect AAs. Various blurs confuse the matter moreso. The whole structure to IQ analysis is falling apart. People should probably just give up on the numbers and go by sight. "This game looks sharp to me/looks soft/looks blurry". The numbers game is plain misleading (as they so often are, such as megapixels in cameras not being the best way to tell whether a phone takes good pictures or not).
Billy Idol
Legend
Exactly. It is not fair imo to compare a fully static game to a game featuring destruction. I really scratch my head how people can compare such games?!?
As long as other action games don't feature destruction, BF4 is for me personally in its own league and way ahead with respect to tec.
I am just a bit worried and hope that DICE target their assets for 1080p gameplay and not for console sub full HD resolution, as I will play this game at 1080p/60Hz on my PC, hoping for maximum quality.
Shifty,
you mean like 1080p game but runs alpha effect on very low res? But this time, its not just the alpha, many things can run on lower res however the dev wants.
sorry if im wrong, im a bit confused
thanks
you mean like 1080p game but runs alpha effect on very low res? But this time, its not just the alpha, many things can run on lower res however the dev wants.
sorry if im wrong, im a bit confused
thanks
Yep. Let's consider 4 different 60 FPS shooters
1) Renders everything at 720p with high AA. Main geom, reflections, particles, lightmaps, shadow resolution (perfect texel to pixel ratio), etc.
2) Renders opaque geometry at 1080p with FXAA that sometimes works, sometimes breaks. Renders all transparent and reflective buffers at 1024x1024, no AA. Renders lightmaps and shadowmaps at 512x512.
3) Renders distant objects at 960x480 no AA and DOF blurs. Renders nearer objects at 720p no AA with less blur. Renders nearer objects at 1080p with high AA (these distances being switchable depending on where the player is pointing). Everything you look at is sharp, but most of the game is rendered well below FullHD.
4) Renders luminance at 1080p. Renders chrominance (albedo) at 720p (chroma subsampling, like DVDs and BRDs). Renders specular intensity at 720p, specular power at 720p, motion vectors at 960x480. Smoke is rendered as particle overlays at 1024x1024. Reflections are 720p 30 fps. Bokeh is a 1024x512 anamorphic buffer.
What resolution is each of these games running at?
One can come up with any number of combinations, all with different results, none of which one can really appreciate until one looks at it. The numbers game is a dead end. It means nothing. You may as well pick what film to go see based on the triangle counts of the special effects models as pick a game based on a number assigned to one buffer type. In the olden days, resolution meant you could tell what it'd look like on screen. Sub HD meant the whole thing was 600p or less, and we knew our TV pictures would look a bit softer or downright blurry (oh, and incidentally, filtering types could be considered a form of resolution types. 720p with 16x AF will look a lot sharper a lot of the time over 1080p with 0xAF) but that's no longer true. Every game will look 'HD good'. That might be soft due to the AA process, or post-processed cinematic lens simulation, or lots of lower buffers, or it might look pin sharp, but there probably won't be any 'bad' games like some of the near SD quality titles of this gen.
People making their choice based on a number aren't doing themselves or the devs any favours. We live in the internet age. Watch some high quality direct-feed and then decide. Leave the numbers game only to technical analysis that's interested in the engineering of games.
1) Renders everything at 720p with high AA. Main geom, reflections, particles, lightmaps, shadow resolution (perfect texel to pixel ratio), etc.
2) Renders opaque geometry at 1080p with FXAA that sometimes works, sometimes breaks. Renders all transparent and reflective buffers at 1024x1024, no AA. Renders lightmaps and shadowmaps at 512x512.
3) Renders distant objects at 960x480 no AA and DOF blurs. Renders nearer objects at 720p no AA with less blur. Renders nearer objects at 1080p with high AA (these distances being switchable depending on where the player is pointing). Everything you look at is sharp, but most of the game is rendered well below FullHD.
4) Renders luminance at 1080p. Renders chrominance (albedo) at 720p (chroma subsampling, like DVDs and BRDs). Renders specular intensity at 720p, specular power at 720p, motion vectors at 960x480. Smoke is rendered as particle overlays at 1024x1024. Reflections are 720p 30 fps. Bokeh is a 1024x512 anamorphic buffer.
What resolution is each of these games running at?
One can come up with any number of combinations, all with different results, none of which one can really appreciate until one looks at it. The numbers game is a dead end. It means nothing. You may as well pick what film to go see based on the triangle counts of the special effects models as pick a game based on a number assigned to one buffer type. In the olden days, resolution meant you could tell what it'd look like on screen. Sub HD meant the whole thing was 600p or less, and we knew our TV pictures would look a bit softer or downright blurry (oh, and incidentally, filtering types could be considered a form of resolution types. 720p with 16x AF will look a lot sharper a lot of the time over 1080p with 0xAF) but that's no longer true. Every game will look 'HD good'. That might be soft due to the AA process, or post-processed cinematic lens simulation, or lots of lower buffers, or it might look pin sharp, but there probably won't be any 'bad' games like some of the near SD quality titles of this gen.
People making their choice based on a number aren't doing themselves or the devs any favours. We live in the internet age. Watch some high quality direct-feed and then decide. Leave the numbers game only to technical analysis that's interested in the engineering of games.
