Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion Archive [2015]

[sebbbi]

A team needs to ship at least one full game to understand a new platform. This is especially true for performance optimizations. Also it is a widely known fact that tools get better with time. Feedback from the game developers is very important for tools developers. This is nothing new. Compare TLoU with PS3 launch games and the difference is huge (and the same is true for PS2 as well).

 

[Shortbread]

A team needs to ship at least one full game to understand a new platform. This is especially true for performance optimizations. Also it is a widely known fact that tools get better with time. Feedback from the game developers is very important for tools developers. This is nothing new. Compare TLoU with PS3 launch games and the difference is huge (and the same is true for PS2 as well).

This.

 

[iroboto]

Not that I'm saying your right or wrong... the issues outside of AF, like performance (fps), it seems PS4 has struggled with certain 3rd party games in this regard as well. If certain 3rd party developers are struggling with performance deltas they want to meet - then no AF or lower quality AF maybe their immediate solution. I think Ubisoft raw data test somewhat confirms PS4 CPU is not the beefiest...

Please don't get me wrong, PS4 hardware overall is tops when compared to others. However, it has its own quirks and limitations like any other hardware.

Definitely. It's a learning thing here for all of us.

 

[3dilettante]

A team needs to ship at least one full game to understand a new platform. This is especially true for performance optimizations. Also it is a widely known fact that tools get better with time. Feedback from the game developers is very important for tools developers. This is nothing new. Compare TLoU with PS3 launch games and the difference is huge (and the same is true for PS2 as well).

Sounds more like Lazy Non-time-traveling Devs if you ask me...

 

[mpg1]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...eld-hardline-multiplayer-performance-analysis

Battlefield: Hardline is runs at 720p on Xbox One and 900p on PS4. Frame-rates hover between 45-60fps in multiplayer. It looks like frostbite 3 has been virtually untouched since Battlefield 4 as the graphics look essentially the same. But maybe intentionally no serious work has been done on the graphics engine for this game as it is more of an offshoot of Battlefeild 4 than a main Battlefield release..fair enough it's not a main franchise.

But my main question is though... how well are these consoles going to handle Star Wars Battlefront in what looks like a much more graphically complex and demanding engine (

) than what is used for BF4 and Hardline? I mean if Xbox runs this older BF4 engine at 720p what is Battlefront going to run at? I've held off on buying a console and i think I will wait until i see how battlefront runs on these consoles before deciding...probably the first real litmus test of how long these consoles will hold up IMO.

 

[Arwin]

How likely is it that Battlefront will run at 60fps?

 

[mpg1]

How likely is it that Battlefront will run at 60fps?

On consoles?...I'm skeptical that it will. Unless DICE has worked some sort of magic. Maybe 30fps won't be as bad in a Star Wars game compared to a military shooter such as battlefield. I'm not even sure if it's first-person of third-person or what the gameplay is supposed to be like. I think you can get away with 30fps for third-person based games much more than you can with first-person.

 

[Zane]

How likely is it that Battlefront will run at 60fps?

Somewhat likely. Can't imagine it's going to be radically different to Battlefield. Big maps and lots of players. Unless "teh grafiks" are so insane they just cant manage it. I hope they do target 60.

 

[chris1515]

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/d...eld-hardline-multiplayer-performance-analysis

Battlefield: Hardline is runs at 720p on Xbox One and 900p on PS4. Frame-rates hover between 45-60fps in multiplayer. It looks like frostbite 3 has been virtually untouched since Battlefield 4 as the graphics look essentially the same. But maybe intentionally no serious work has been done on the graphics engine for this game as it is more of an offshoot of Battlefeild 4 than a main Battlefield release..fair enough it's not a main franchise.

But my main question is though... how well are these consoles going to handle Star Wars Battlefront in what looks like a much more graphically complex and demanding engine (

) than what is used for BF4 and Hardline? I mean if Xbox runs this older BF4 engine at 720p what is Battlefront going to run at? I've held off on buying a console and i think I will wait until i see how battlefront runs on these consoles before deciding...probably the first real litmus test of how long these consoles will hold up IMO.

The game will probably be 30 fps...

 

[pjbliverpool]

Those Battlefront graphics are beyond belief... literally. I don't expect the end game to look like that. If it does though... I'm in!

 

[Deleted member 11852]

Those Battlefront graphics are beyond belief... literally. I don't expect the end game to look like that. If it does though... I'm in!

Which bits? It looks good and, more importantly very in the visual style of the films, but what's standing out to you?

 

[Karamazov]

the wow factor of battlefront will mainly come from the art and the fact that it's star wars, i'm sure the tech won't be that much beyond BF4. The real deal should be battlefield 5.

 

[Scott_Arm]

I'm not going to read too much into Hardline's performance. It seems like it's essentially the same engine as BF4 at launch. Launch titles typically aren't a great indicator of future performance.

 

[mpg1]

the wow factor of battlefront will mainly come from the art and the fact that it's star wars, i'm sure the tech won't be that much beyond BF4. The real deal should be battlefield 5.

What? Have you watched the Star Wars battlefront video above? The clips where it says "early in-engine footage"? It looks mind blowing to me. Looks like big leap in tech from battlefield 4 engine and I would guess bf5 will be using this updated engine as well.

 

[Deleted member 11852]

It looks mind blowing to me. Looks like big leap in tech from battlefield 4 engine and I would guess bf5 will be using this updated engine as well.

I don't know what you guys are seeing but it's passing me by. Snowy landscape, lush forest, yada yada. BF4 and SW:BF both run on Frostbite 3 although it stands to reason there there have been many been iterative improvements between BF4s launch in Fall 2013 and SW:BFs launch later in 2015.

 

[mpg1]

Those Battlefront graphics are beyond belief... literally. I don't expect the end game to look like that. If it does though... I'm in!

I don't either. Those "in-engine" clips are verging on movie cg quality/photo-realism. I don't see how it could run on anything other than the highest end PC available to achieve that level of detail.

These early footage E3 videos from games that won't be out for a couple of years are kinda BS in way. It's basically tech demos running on high end PC's. Not always a good indication of what it will look like...especially for consoles.

 

[mpg1]

I don't know what you guys are seeing but it's passing me by. Snowy landscape, lush forest, yada yada. BF4 and SW:BF both run on Frostbite 3 although it stands to reason there there have been many been iterative improvements between BF4s launch in Fall 2013 and SW:BFs launch later in 2015.

I dunno man...it looks like a significant leap to me....look at a BF4 video and then look at how that forest looks in that battlefront video. It almost looks like movie level CG.

 

[pjbliverpool]

I don't know what you guys are seeing but it's passing me by. Snowy landscape, lush forest, yada yada.

Seriously? The graphics at 1:41 for example? They are vastly beyond anything that's available on any platform today IMO. If the end game were to look just like that (I'm sure it won't) then it would be head and shoulders the best looking game available today (IMO of course).

 

[Deleted member 11852]

I dunno man...it looks like a significant leap to me....look at a BF4 video and then look at how that forest looks in that battlefront video.

I have BF4 so I'm well used to it and I'm also familiar with the lush tropical environments of Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag. Lush forests are almost passé but it's Endor so it's a lush forest.

It almost looks like movie level CG.

You are going to make VFX_Veteran cry.

Seriously? The graphics at 1:41 for example? They are vastly beyond anything that's available on any platform today IMO.

I'm not seeing it. It's a nice forest, the laser blast is very Star Warsy.

 

[upnorthsox]

I don't know what you guys are seeing but it's passing me by. Snowy landscape, lush forest, yada yada. BF4 and SW:BF both run on Frostbite 3 although it stands to reason there there have been many been iterative improvements between BF4s launch in Fall 2013 and SW:BFs launch later in 2015.

Why? What in Hardline is screaming iterative improvements?