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

[Cyan]

Again Dice should've optimized the SP to 1080p/30 for pure eye candy since most people only play it once or some never. So why the heck sacrificing the res just for a check box?

Let's all be frank here, most people except the hardcore shooters want their nextgen games look nextgen. You don't sell a new console for 60fps mate, you sell it for in your face graphical leap compared to your old console. I can 99% guarantee you BF4 on PS4/Xbone wont look too much different than PS360 versions graphically speaking, not counting the 64 players. People who upgraded to a bigger full hd TV would hurt the most, at 720p no matter how sharp your textures are, they would get totally compromised by the low res, so it's completely a waste. They say it's >720 but by how much? If it's even close to 1080p then Dice would mentioned it already so don't even hold your breath here.

GG is doing something extremely smart with KZSF in this regard. Satisfying the mass casual players for razor sharp 1080p graphics while at the same time catering for the framerate whores for competitive MP. Like I said earlier if it's not too late for Dice to change the plan then they really should get on with it! I'm sorry if my rant come up too aggressive but this is exactly how I feel about it.

I wouldn't be happy with playing at 30 fps just to get some more shiny shiny surfaces in exchange.

I wouldn't mind having it available as a option but I'd play at 30 fps just out of curiosity and that would be it for me, since I consider 60 fps and above the holy grail of gaming when it comes to softness & smoothness.

Okay, if developers want to sprinkle some glitter on the graphics, it's their choice, but you can get adamantine graphics at 60 fps and 720p -so they can decrease the resolution- with these very advanced consoles. They are really powerful taking into account power consumption.

 

[Scott_Arm]

There's a single player campaign in Battlefield? *sarcasm*

Honestly though, is this complaint about sub-1080p actually a legitimate complaint, or is this just fanboy warring, because a certain other game (much smaller scale, no vehicles, no destruction, fewer players, single platform) has been mentioned several times by those complaining.

People who play Battlefield know 60Hz is the right choice. Even at 720p it's going to look a ton better than BF3 on PS360. I have a feeling the final resolution will be higher than that, but it wouldn't really matter to me. Like Shifty said, resolution doesn't really mean anything anymore. You can have low-res shadows, lighting, blurs, transparencies and post-processing that kill your image quality. BF4 is likely to to have much better image quality, even at 720p.

 

[ultragpu]

Dice putting tons more effort into BF4 sp than they did in BF3 means there is a campaign.
Now 1080p is a very legitimate complaint especially for big TV owners, nextgen standard or just the pure crispiness to your eyes. It doesn't have to be seen as fanboy war all the time you know.

By your rationale why can't most ps360 game be 480p so that we can have 60fps in Gears, Uncharted etc? Would you really play a 480p game on your 42-50"? Alan Wake even at 520p looked like the blurriest game I've ever seen. 720p is simply unacceptable for nextgen, the pixel density is simply inadequate to display fine details in textures and we know texture is a major part to present a game's visual.
Most people I know now have at least 50"+ TVs and that's when 1080p would really show its benefit at this day of age.

 

[tuna]

Personally I don't care about MP, my main concern was about the single player game experience... which will be crippled right along side MP.

Then I don't really think you should play the BF series.

 

[Shortbread]

Again Dice should've optimized the SP to 1080p/30 for pure eye candy since most people only play it once or some never. So why the heck sacrificing the res just for a check box?

Let's all be frank here, most people except the hardcore shooters want their nextgen games look nextgen. You don't sell a new console for 60fps mate, you sell it for in your face graphical leap compared to your old console. I can 99% guarantee you BF4 on PS4/Xbone wont look too much different than PS360 versions graphically speaking, not counting the 64 players. People who upgraded to a bigger full hd TV would hurt the most, at 720p no matter how sharp your textures are, they would get totally compromised by the low res, so it's completely a waste. They say it's >720 but by how much? If it's even close to 1080p then Dice would mentioned it already so don't even hold your breath here.

GG is doing something extremely smart with KZSF in this regard. Satisfying the mass casual players for razor sharp 1080p graphics while at the same time catering for the framerate whores for competitive MP. Like I said earlier if it's not too late for Dice to change the plan then they really should get on with it! I'm sorry if my rant come up too aggressive but this is exactly how I feel about it.

100% agree.

 

[djskribbles]

By the sounds of it, DICE is still uncertain of what resolution they'll go with, which is why they didn't mention the resolution. They're probably still optimizing. I think if PS4/X1 have good quality scalers (which I'm sure they will) resolution won't matter as much compared to last gen (especially on PS3).

 

[Scott_Arm]

Dice putting tons more effort into BF4 sp than they did in BF3 means there is a campaign.
Now 1080p is a very legitimate complaint especially for big TV owners, nextgen standard or just the pure crispiness to your eyes. It doesn't have to be seen as fanboy war all the time you know.

By your rationale why can't most ps360 game be 480p so that we can have 60fps in Gears, Uncharted etc? Would you really play a 480p game on your 42-50"? Alan Wake even at 520p looked like the blurriest game I've ever seen. 720p is simply unacceptable for nextgen, the pixel density is simply inadequate to display fine details in textures and we know texture is a major part to present a game's visual.
Most people I know now have at least 50"+ TVs and that's when 1080p would really show its benefit at this day of age.

I'll believe that sub-1080p is a legitimate complaint when someone actually sees the game running at that resolution. I would have been fine with a 480p game. I think there was a thread about that a long time ago, and I expressed my interest in seeing what could be done with visuals in a 480p game.

Saying a game is 1080p on its own means nothing. Shifty has already explained it in this thread. The benefits of 60fps over 30fps are far more obvious. It's a good tradeoff to make. I also think 720p is a smaller step down from 1080p than 480p is from 720p, in terms of overall image quality. Once you get past the 720p point, you're going to get into diminishing returns, for lack of a better term, unless you are sitting unnaturally close to your tv. Most people wouldn't have known games were sub-720p last gen if it weren't for pixel counters telling them so. Something less than 1080p will be even harder to spot, and I imagine it will be the case that people will not notice unless they're told.

 

[Bigduo209]

Battlefield 4 on PS4 “spotting” done via R1 button, DICE said to offer “alternate” trigger scheme to L2/R2

http://pixelenemy.com/battlefield-4...id-to-offer-alternate-trigger-scheme-to-l2r2/

I'll believe that sub-1080p is a legitimate complaint when someone actually sees the game running at that resolution. I would have been fine with a 480p game. I think there was a thread about that a long time ago, and I expressed my interest in seeing what could be done with visuals in a 480p game.

Saying a game is 1080p on its own means nothing. Shifty has already explained it in this thread. The benefits of 60fps over 30fps are far more obvious. It's a good tradeoff to make. I also think 720p is a smaller step down from 1080p than 480p is from 720p, in terms of overall image quality. Once you get past the 720p point, you're going to get into diminishing returns, for lack of a better term, unless you are sitting unnaturally close to your tv. Most people wouldn't have known games were sub-720p last gen if it weren't for pixel counters telling them so. Something less than 1080p will be even harder to spot, and I imagine it will be the case that people will not notice unless they're told.

That's my point of view on resolution differences as well. Going into this generation doesn't mean every game should get an automatic resolution boost.

There's other ways to make a game visually standout from previous generations, and having these arbitrary limits is going to make things worse when devs eventually sacrifice the set resolution and graphical effects for more demanding games. A 720p game upscaled to 1080p isn't going kill anyone or make a game worse.

And maybe aiming for a lower standard resolution that current-gen console games couldn't even maintain would've been the better route to take.

 

[Nesh]

With proper AA solutions a 720p resolution leaving room for amazingly detailed assets and effects will be a better solution than 1080p.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Let's all be frank here, most people except the hardcore shooters want their nextgen games look nextgen.

And you'd be wrong there. What was the most popular games near the start of the last generation and for years afterwards? 720p? Nope. 1080p? Nope. Sub-720p. Yup.

Most of the best selling (meaning the games that most people wanted) games last generation were sub-720p. COD (all), Halo (all except for 4), GTA 4, Red Dead Redemption (PS3, X360 was 720p), Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, etc. Sure there were a lot of 720p games. But they generally sold far less than a lot of sub 720p games. Gran Turismo is a nice outlier, but I'd argue that even if it was sub 720p, it still would have sold exactly the same amount of copies.

I have a feeling the same people that are going into this generation saying anything that isn't 1080p sucks are the same people that went into the last generation saying anything that isn't 1080p sucks. Well until they saw no games and then changed to anything that isn't 720p sucks.

Just as they were the minority back then, they are going to still be the minority in the upcoming generation.

The general public is only going to care whether a game looks good and plays well. And resolution doesn't really matter to either of those at typical living room viewing distances (3m+) on anything less than a 80"-100" display. And even then, I'd be willing to bet that most of the general public still wouldn't care.

Regards,
SB

 

[Tap In]

Prefer 720p with 60fps and lots of eye candy than forcing 1080/60 to hit a number on a box

 

[Rangers]

There's a single player campaign in Battlefield? *sarcasm*

Honestly though, is this complaint about sub-1080p actually a legitimate complaint, or is this just fanboy warring, because a certain other game (much smaller scale, no vehicles, no destruction, fewer players, single platform) has been mentioned several times by those complaining.

People who play Battlefield know 60Hz is the right choice. Even at 720p it's going to look a ton better than BF3 on PS360. I have a feeling the final resolution will be higher than that, but it wouldn't really matter to me. Like Shifty said, resolution doesn't really mean anything anymore. You can have low-res shadows, lighting, blurs, transparencies and post-processing that kill your image quality. BF4 is likely to to have much better image quality, even at 720p.

I think the proof is in the pudding there. We're complaining. It does matter.

It's just kind of annoying we're discussing this so early in next gen. So many compromises, so little power.

Most of the best selling (meaning the games that most people wanted) games last generation were sub-720p. COD (all), Halo (all except for 4), GTA 4, Red Dead Redemption (PS3, X360 was 720p), Bioshock and Bioshock Infinite, etc. Sure there were a lot of 720p games. But they generally sold far less than a lot of sub 720p games. Gran Turismo is a nice outlier, but I'd argue that even if it was sub 720p, it still would have sold exactly the same amount of copies.

In most of those cases though they were pretty close to 720P. I dont think people would complain as much if BF4 turned up 1600X1080 which is the analogy to 1080P as all those games you list are to 720P. 720P is less than half 1080P.

Late edit: It's not strictly OT but I dont see a Fifa thread and I thought this qoute from the Fifa 14 devs on GAF was terribly interesting (about what they did with next gen power)

"There were two things we did straight away," said Rutter. "One was bump it up to 1080p and see if it made a difference, because 1080p's expensive. It's a lot of graphics. We were sceptical going into it, but came out being glad we did it, because it makes a significant difference. That was the most performance expensive thing we did initially."

Surprising devs are so reticent about paying that 1080P cost it seems.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

In most of those cases though they were pretty close to 720P. I dont think people would complain as much if BF4 turned up 1600X1080 which is the analogy to 1080P as all those games you list are to 720P. 720P is less than half 1080P.

Not THAT close.

COD: MW 1, 2, and 3 - 1024x600
COD: BO - 960x544 PS3, 1040x608 X360
COD: BO 2 - 832x624 to 880x720 PS3, 880x720 X360
Halo 3 - 1152x640

Those resolutions actually would be noticeable on a 50" TV at some typical living room distances. But guess what? Unless you tell someone that it is sub-HD, almost all of them would never know.

At typical living room distances the majority of people alive would not be able to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p at typical living room distances (3+ meters, couch -> coffee table -> space -> TV). Yes, single bachelors may not have a coffee table or a couch.

I game at 720p on my 55" TV because 1080p offers no visual upgrade for PC games at that distance. I have yet to have anyone reliably tell the difference between a 720p feed and a 1080p feed in a blind test on my TV as long as I didn't have text on my screen. And I've been pulling that test on people for the past 3 years. And yes that includes people that claimed they have better than 20/20 vision. I'm not about to take them to an optometrist to test, so I trust they aren't lying. Hence 720p + eyecandy enabled looks significantly better than 1080p with less eyecandy enabled.

Regards,
SB

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I think the proof is in the pudding there. We're complaining. It does matter.

"Resolution doesn't mean anything any more" != "Resolution isn't important"

"Resolution doesn't mean anything any more" == A singular metric is inaccurate when describing the very numerous buffers used in compositing the final image such that the game with highest singular buffer resolution doesn't necessarily provide the highest quality, cleanest visuals. It is possible for a game with its highest resolution buffer being 720p to have overall far better IQ and clarity than a game with its highest resolution buffer being 1080p. The only way to compare the outcomes of different approaches is to see the results.

 

[NRP]

But we need numbers damnit! Otherwise, how are we to continue the Console Wars!!!

 

[novcze]

I'm perfectly fine with sub 1080p and 60fps as long as it stays at 60 fps all the time.

I played BF3 online and made mistake, big one, bought Rage in some sale and played it ... silky smooth 60 fps of Rage killed BF3 for me, I just can't stand sub 30fps framerates even if I know there is destruction and lot more in BF3

 

[Cyan]

I think the proof is in the pudding there. We're complaining. It does matter.

It's just kind of annoying we're discussing this so early in next gen. So many compromises, so little power.



In most of those cases though they were pretty close to 720P. I dont think people would complain as much if BF4 turned up 1600X1080 which is the analogy to 1080P as all those games you list are to 720P. 720P is less than half 1080P.

Late edit: It's not strictly OT but I dont see a Fifa thread and I thought this qoute from the Fifa 14 devs on GAF was terribly interesting (about what they did with next gen power)



Surprising devs are so reticent about paying that 1080P cost it seems.

Kinda OT too but do you know anyone who could create a FIFA 14 thread or would you mind creating it yourself? I wouldn't mind to start a FIFA 14 thread myself but I created a few already, I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Back on subject, over time we will know what's the "natural state of being" of these consoles, if 1080p 60 fps or something else, but this is going to be the most fascinating and exciting generation ever, at least for consoles, I think.

 

[Rangers]

Kinda OT too but do you know anyone who could create a FIFA 14 thread or would you mind creating it yourself? I wouldn't mind to start a FIFA 14 thread myself but I created a few already, I don't think that's the right thing to do.

Go ahead and create it, it doesn't matter how many you create.

I wont because I could care less about the game.

 

[orangpelupa]

the effect of resolution to perceived IQ also depends on the game's art. For game that aiming for realistic picture, lowe res are okay. But for game that aiming for clear distinct hand-drawn art, resolution boost can give phenomenal IQ boost.

For example. CoD series looks fine on low res, runs on high res it does not look much better.
Zelda SKyward sword when run on 1080p, complete with AA, wow. The IQ are phenomenal.

*all of this only from personal experience.

 

[RudeCurve]

There's a single player campaign in Battlefield? *sarcasm*

Honestly though, is this complaint about sub-1080p actually a legitimate complaint, or is this just fanboy warring, because a certain other game (much smaller scale, no vehicles, no destruction, fewer players, single platform) has been mentioned several times by those complaining.

+1...irony is that other game looks like current gen uprezzed...which is what you get when you run at 1080p..

Anyway personally I'd rather have something like 1680x1050 at 48fps...