Star Wars Battlefront [PS4, XO]

  • Thread starter Deleted member 11852
  • Start date
L. Scofield said:
As the evidence shows, it's a perfectly valid comparison. It's not my fault if that hurts your feelings.

Vegetation in Battlefront is nothing impressive, specially considering the harsh LOD pointed out by Clukos. Is it even destructible? Crysis 1's is.
Click to expand...

The only major gaping hole in a comparison of Crysis/series foliage vs Frostbite SW Battlefront foliage is that Crysis stage design is based entirely on jungle/bunch of trees/Forrest stages while Battlefront has only certain stages devoted to Jungle/forrest...

Also it's that maxed out, Crysis never ran at 60FPS as opposed to this Battlefront.

Crysis as nice as it was is dead and you are comparing a walk amd gawk visual screenshot as opposed to Battlefront being designed for 60fps out the game and online only...

In theory all of the Crysis games could be remade or remastered for current consoles to run at 60FPS...probably Crysis 3 will have a hard time at 60FPS....
 
Recop said:
But you didn't give a lot of arguments to support your point.

I think vegetation is far more realistic in Battlefront. My only complaint is the LOD issue.

I don't care if Crysis's foliage density is higher : i prefer quality over quantity.
Click to expand...
The point I was addressing was about consoles being able to properly handle the vegetation. Density is in fact very important.

Akumajou said:
The only major gaping hole in a comparison of Crysis/series foliage vs Frostbite SW Battlefront foliage is that Crysis stage design is based entirely on jungle/bunch of trees/Forrest stages while Battlefront has only certain stages devoted to Jungle/forrest...

Also it's that maxed out, Crysis never ran at 60FPS as opposed to this Battlefront.

Crysis as nice as it was is dead and you are comparing a walk amd gawk visual screenshot as opposed to Battlefront being designed for 60fps out the game and online only...

In theory all of the Crysis games could be remade or remastered for current consoles to run at 60FPS...probably Crysis 3 will have a hard time at 60FPS....
Click to expand...
What does that have to do with whether current consoles can handle BF's vegetation or not?
 
I wasn't blown away by the little beta they did, but Endor looks really fun, and a lot of the game modes on the other map look cool. That dogfight mode looks great.
 
L. Scofield said:
The point I was addressing was about consoles being able to properly handle the vegetation. Density is in fact very important.


What does that have to do with whether current consoles can handle BF's vegetation or not?
Click to expand...

Uncharted Collection and Uncharted 4 have dense vegetation...and it's console only.

Crysis is mostly known and remembered for it's single player campaign graphics...it's online multiplayer is hardly anything of a threat to the dominating FPSs graphics and gameplay.

It's an interesting topic because we know current consoles have these powerful GPUs and 8GB of ram...but I was also thinking of the Digital Foundry Halo 5 price of 60fps where the price for that game's target based on their current limitations are pointed out.

Battlefront is online multiplayer maps...even if playable offline, they are still online multiplayer maps...I kinda agree that things should be more impressive but what single graphics card finally enabled complete start to finish delta play through at 1080p and 60fps and how many years did it take for that single card to materialize?
 
Last edited:
To this day UC4's PSX demo displayed the most dense foliage level I've ever seen all with physics collision no less. There's literally foliage on every inch of ground, the level should be more impressive now too since they have added that volumetric lighting in the latest demo.
 
Akumajou said:
Uncharted Collection and Uncharted 4 have dense vegetation...and it's console only.

Crysis is mostly known and remembered for it's single player campaign graphics...it's online multiplayer is hardly anything of a threat to the dominating FPSs graphics and gameplay.

It's an interesting topic because we know current consoles have these powerful GPUs and 8GB of ram...but I was also thinking of the Digital Foundry Halo 5 price of 60fps where the price for that game's target based on their current limitations are pointed out.

Battlefront is online multiplayer maps...even if playable offline, they are still online multiplayer maps...I kinda agree that things should be more impressive but what single graphics card finally enabled complete start to finish delta play through at 1080p and 60fps and how many years did it take for that single card to materialize?
Click to expand...

Indestructible vegetation is processed locally, so what impact does multiplayer have on it?
 
Being making comparisons should support them with images/videos. We don't all have an encyclopaedic knowledge of how every game looked. ;) With comparable images for reference, people can then discuss what's similar/different from a common point of reference.
 
But most importantly they should NOT do any of that in this thread. This thread is about gaming and more specifically its about the Star Wars BattleFront Console Game.

Take the technical comparison talk elsewhere.
 
L. Scofield said:
Indestructible vegetation is processed locally, so what impact does multiplayer have on it?
Click to expand...

It is and has been my understanding that dedicated single player campaign levels are designed differently than online multiplayer map levels.

I understand the tech talk goes off topic but Battlefront despite it's advantages in hardware base (current gen consoles) is explicitly designed in a way that even if it "should" surpass everything elements wise from Crysis...it doesn't mean it "should" waste time doing it now or that it's a negative and that isn't defending DICE or the game.

It would be fair if a dedicated single player campaign Star Wars FPS was made but even so they wouldn't be limited to an a couple of stage world types.

Crysis could definitely be enhanced and remade bearing in mind that devs have much better tools now...in theory...but it's a bit besides the point because even Battlefield has lost "features" in a way in favor of others and it does take time to make big 3d engine revisions depending on what the target resolution and framerates can allow.

Not saying old was bad but there were different targets back then. Older gen console game have a lot of depth that has been lost with recent console gen hardware jumps and requirements of online play...I believe these things can be noticed and observed and it isn't obvious that it could be simply answered by asking devs because they are too busy targeting something based on current visions.

I hope what I said helps as it's all I can say.
 
"but endor won't look that good on consoles and will run like sh!t"
i know it's still 720/900p on consoles but it's definitely a big step hup from BF4 in IQ, GFX and performance.
 
Ways to undercut multi-million dollar marketing deal: Have EA access available only on competing console.

Seriously dodes, youtube/social media is currently awash with hands on coverage of this game and none of it on PS4...might wanna tighten that loophole next time Sony...

Anyways, game is not my thing, looks downright childish in tone to me (run around as caricature Vader smiting rebel scum and spouting one liners), which isn't bad, just not my thing. I've also read a post on GAF that suggests the gameplay while fun is likely to be rather shallow.
 
Yeah the lack of a proper campaign really does this game no favor in total enjoyment. Is the other new SW game using the same engine tho?
 
Saw the gate xbone videos.

As expected the game looks very pretty...definitely wish consoles had more power and that next time they try 64 players online multiplayer map design.

I didn't like some weird animations when the snowspeeder was circling the AT-ATs seemed like it was pausing it's stomping which didn't remind me of previous games or the film.

The animation cosmetics of the Emperor (it's nit picking) his shroud hood shows a "bald spot" as his head goes through...and the Sith Lightning just didn't seem to animate like in the films...just a spread out bolt instead of a bit more animation...

Still the game seems very pretty and of course arcadey which shows the mix up of ground combat type...

Hoth is still very impressive with it's snow feet-print animations...although it seems lame that the ATAT only goes on the "rail"

Want to see more...I'm sure the casuals will dig it...the game doesn't feel dangerous enough imo... (64 player and a bit larger map might do it) and yeah based on the Beta I also didn't like how regular blaster fire can be used to bring down or chip away at the ATAT (whigh seems to get more lighting animations)

Endor copies of the California Redwoods (same...) looked nice as expected nothing shocking or out of place... (it may only take an ATAT to take down a tree but then why unless it was a trigger for levolution)

Somehow I would be surprised if levolution didn't feature a crashing Star ship.

Looking forward to the reviews and more levels...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

I
The first Evil Within still has remarkably sophisticated lighting
Replies
2
Views
1K
Phantom88
P
G
Tech Differences between Switch and 7th Gen (PS3/360) Games
2
Replies
21
Views
9K
GuardHei
G
D
Video Game Console Cooling - A Hot Topic (pun kind of intended).
Replies
14
Views
3K
Shifty Geezer
Shifty Geezer
K
Star Wars: Squadrons (EA) [XO, PS4, PC, VR]
3 4 5
Replies
98
Views
12K
Davros
D
D
Quick Resume List
4 5 6
Replies
106
Views
20K
Omegaxyz
O
Back
Top