Wouldn't that be like saying CoD could have looked way better at 480p/60? I don't think that would have worked.
Battlefield 4 : Prepare 4 battle !
- Thread starter RenegadeRocks
- Start date
Wouldn't that be like saying CoD could have looked way better at 480p/60? I don't think that would have worked.
The lower in resolution you go the larger the relative effect on the overall image of resolution compared to the core graphics. The move from 1080p to 720p is not as noticeable as 720p to 480p.
Besides, that wasn't the point. The point was regardless of whether it's running at 720p like the last generation consoles, it's still going to have far better core graphics and run at double the framerate on Orbis.
arijoytunir
Regular
http://m.neogaf.com/showthread.php?t=519252
This got out quite a while ago . Maybe dice is optimising bf4 for upcoming amd Kaveri APU which is rumoured to have gddr5 ram inbuilt and also around 1 TF of GCN gpu power .
This got out quite a while ago . Maybe dice is optimising bf4 for upcoming amd Kaveri APU which is rumoured to have gddr5 ram inbuilt and also around 1 TF of GCN gpu power .
It's still a much higher of a leap than 480 to 720,eye of the beholder I guess.
Volumetric lighting shafts as a sign of lighting quality??
Seriously, the contrast and realism in the various BF4 lighting environments is irrelevant to you, and all that matter are the cheap tricks?
Not true!
480p to 720p is a 3x increase in pixels.(307k to 921k)
720p to 1080p is little more than 2x. (921k to 2million)
DuckThor Evil
Legend
You are using a narrow 4:3 ratio for the 480p resolution and wide 16:9 for 720p and 1080p.
By also using 16:9 (854*480) for the 480p, the jump in pixels is 2.25x in both cases.
RenegadeRocks
Legend
So, the thread is cool and all with all the discussion, but whne is DICE gonna show the MP?
That is all that matters
! I wouldn't mind getting this for the ps3 as that is where the max install base still is and DICE will keep the game limited in scope so that it remains equally fun on the ps360.
That is all that matters
! I wouldn't mind getting this for the ps3 as that is where the max install base still is and DICE will keep the game limited in scope so that it remains equally fun on the ps360.ShadowWolf64
Regular
I found out over at Teamxbox that the 17 minute gameplay video was running at 3k resolution and 60 fps as well.Pretty crazy...
Silent_Buddha
Legend
720p would really suck since it would be on par with current gen PS3 version.
go for 1080p Dice
Not true. 720p will most likely allow the PS4 version to have feature parity with the PC version and thus look just as good.
1080p means they'd have to cut stuff and once again console version will look worse than PC version just like PS3 generation.
Either way it'll look better than BF3 on PS3. But it's all a matter of how much better. 1080p, meh. 720p, oh yeah.
Regards,
SB
I consider cutting the resolution by 225% alot worse then dropping texture res/draw distance/particle density and pretty much whatever else may be cut, except for framerate, i want 1080p/60hz BF4 on PS4 with no/low aliasing.
Image clarity is much better then prettier graphics that are blurred to hell because of 720p.
Well in worst case scenario I'd take 1080/30 which should be very possible since image clarity matters to me way over fps.
I can't tell any difference in the slightest to be honest, KZ's lighting is more stylized I guess.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Sure either cut resolution or cut graphical features by a relatively equal amount (assuming things were so simple). I'll take the graphical features, effects, texture resolution, AA, AF, dynamic lighting, tessellated terrain, etc. over a rather meaningless increase in resolution at typical living room viewing distances.
Regards,
SB
BROS I HEAR KILLZONE GONNA BE DA SHIT!
LIKE 8GB DDR5 MAXED OUT! HELLA TIGHT GRAPHICS AND LIGHTING MAKE YOU FEEL LIKE YOU ON MARS!
LOL BATTLEFIELD 4. MORE LIKE 4 YEARS TOO LATE!
KILLZONE 4, PS4 AND PUT IT TOGETHER AND YOU GET 8GBDDR5!
steveOrino
Regular
Why even bother with the single player campaign?
Everyone knows its going to be standard on-rails-shoot-the-terrorist-get-an-achivement. -- Ohh gee, we have to get on this elevator, surely there wont be an attack while riding it but stay frosty!--
EA needs to stop chasing CoD. Either make it battlefield or just kill the series because the only thing they will do is piss off established fans and CoD fans wont give two shits about it.
And yes, I'm mad at the fact that publishers are willing to destroy all diversity in a futile attempt to chase an established franchise playerbase.
Everyone knows its going to be standard on-rails-shoot-the-terrorist-get-an-achivement. -- Ohh gee, we have to get on this elevator, surely there wont be an attack while riding it but stay frosty!--
EA needs to stop chasing CoD. Either make it battlefield or just kill the series because the only thing they will do is piss off established fans and CoD fans wont give two shits about it.
And yes, I'm mad at the fact that publishers are willing to destroy all diversity in a futile attempt to chase an established franchise playerbase.
Why even bother with the single player campaign?
Everyone knows its going to be standard on-rails-shoot-the-terrorist-get-an-achivement. -- Ohh gee, we have to get on this elevator, surely there wont be an attack while riding it but stay frosty!--
EA needs to stop chasing CoD. Either make it battlefield or just kill the series because the only thing they will do is piss off established fans and CoD fans wont give two shits about it.
And yes, I'm mad at the fact that publishers are willing to destroy all diversity in a futile attempt to chase an established franchise playerbase.
I bought the game specifically for single player and thought it was pretty good.
Like you guys I could have swore this was a Battlefield 4 thread.
The Sony fanboys need to go troll some other thread. BF is critically considered one of the best MP franchises in the industry--13 years strong even--and really should not have to contend in threads with a middling 1st party FPS that sales are largerly influenced by the exposure given as a 1st party title and its hype as a, "Halo Killer" back in the day and in 2005 by the infamous fake "gameplay."
http://www.metacritic.com/search/all/Killzone/results
Killzone: 70
Killzone 2: 91
Killzone 3: 84
The games are quite different in gameplay focus, design, and theme (I never saw 64 players running around in Killzone) and bluntly one is a multiplatform franchise and the other an important 1st party exclusive.
Hence what explains the constant moths to flame. Users could have easily created a thread to discuss, "Comparing and Contrasting Next Gen Demos" and such, but no, the normal suspects have to take away from a 17 minute video of some exceptional footage to trumpet their platform/franchise preference.
It is called over compensating.
And to be blunt this is why you don't see CoD, Halo, or even Crysis fans in here as those games really stand on their own. Sony/Killzone fanatics have damned us to another generation of Killzone dribble and, frankly, it is irritating.
Where is an A10 Thunderbolt when you need one? Or an Apache? Mop up duty on page 3 of the thread!
