Billy Idol
Legend
I liked BF3 SP a lot and am looking forward to BF4 SP...looks great!
Battlefield 4 : Prepare 4 battle !
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
deathindustrial
Regular
I watched some Youtube vids of it and realized it was more of the same as BFBC2 so why waste time with it that could be spent playing multiplayer?
In Battelfied Bad Company, the single player was functionally very similar to the multiplayer due to the sandbox nature of it. It also was well written, funny and most importantly fun to play. It also used the same mechanics as multiplayer so play in it was transferable to multiplayer.
In BFBC2 (and BF3 based on reviews + youtube) the two components are entirely different games. BFBC2's writing was abysmal and swapped BFBC's rollicking humour for an ultra bland corridor shooter. BFBC2 single player was terrible enough (especially after the solid BFBC) that watching some Youtube vids was enough to let me know it was a waste of my time to fire it up on BF3. I did try out the co-op on BF3 but it was also pretty weak though at least stuck with the multiplayer mechanics unlike single player.
I've put hundreds of hours into BFBC2 and BF3 multiplayer and I don't have to play the latest single player iteration to question why it is taking up development resources in what is primarily a multiplayer game.
Cheers
Hope it will be in 60 fps as the rumors say. Bf3 ha so terrible input lag it ruined it for me
Also gotta say I think it looks awesome! And this is a first gen game!! Next gen is going to be awesome!!
Also gotta say I think it looks awesome! And this is a first gen game!! Next gen is going to be awesome!!
Last edited by a moderator:
Hell yes to this! DICE needs to just give up on the whole SP campaign thing. They are laughably terrible at it.
Stick to MP, which will be excellent for a few months until DICE gets schizophrenic
and tries to "balance" the game play.
ShadowWolf64
Regular
KZ SF looks pretty good but BF4 looks far better in overall detail, texture quality, lighting, sound design, draw distance, particle effects etc.
The comparison with KZ SF is out of place.
The two demos are running on different hardware at a different resolution and we saw too little about KZ.
Not to mention that lighting, sound design are approached diffidently by DICE and GG since BF 4 is a military FPS and SF is a sci-fi FPS.
The two demos are running on different hardware at a different resolution and we saw too little about KZ.
Not to mention that lighting, sound design are approached diffidently by DICE and GG since BF 4 is a military FPS and SF is a sci-fi FPS.
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I can observe KZ is rendering tons more polygons at least in that city sprawl, just so much more buildings, objects, flying cars and the draw distance is far greater. Lighting wise I don't know which part in BF4 looks better though, it doesn't even have volumetric light shaft. Particle effects are more or less a wash, both have plenty of thick plume of smokes on screen and nice bloom on the fire. But I guess that big oil rig explosion is more well animated. There are some dodgy texture work in BF4 if you look at the vehicle. I can say the destruction in BF4 is definitely something special, it's got that Bad Company 2 physics back again.
No offence but I think any attempt to compare specific features between the two is mostly just BS. There's far too much going on in the scene to simply pick on one aspect and say "that's missing" or "that looks better" and the declare one game technically superior to the other. Graphics technology has gotten to the point now were there will be little to pick between high end games on next gen platforms aside from subjective artistic preference, image quality and frame rate. Physics/interactive environments could also be an objective differentiating factor too, although we don't know enough about either game to compare them on that basis yet.
Just throwing my 2c around, of course no one can be certain of those things to 100% accuracy. They're both amazing looking in their own ways.
It would take 2.56x more power to run the game at 3K compared with 1080p. The 7990 could be achieving real world performance in excess of 2.56x Orbis so I don't think 1080p/60fps on Orbis can be concluded from this.
Plus hasn't it already been confirmed to be running at 720p on Orbis? 3K requires 5.76x more power than 720p and the 7990 certainly doesn't have that advantage over the PS4 hence making 720/60fps definitely achievable.
Call me blind but even if it takes 3x Orbis to render it at 3k, when you drop down to 1080p res wouldn't that perfectly suit Orbis since 1080p is 1/3 of 3k in pixel density?
It's 39% the pixel density which means to run at the same framerate with the same graphics would require Orbis to be 39% as powerful as the 7990 (in real world terms). Which it likely isn't. Obviously that's not accounting for further optimisation of code, the fact that resolution increases don't scale as linearly as that, or how utilised the 7990 was to achieve 60fps. In reality what we have so far doesn't tell us much but my point is we can't automatically take from it that 1080p/60fps is possible on Orbis. However we can derive 720p/60fps being entirely possible from what we've seen.
720p would really suck since it would be on par with current gen PS3 version.
go for 1080p Dice
It would still have vastly better graphics and run at 60fps vs 30fps. I wouldn't consider that the same.
