Battlefield 4 to run at 720p and 60fps. Cool wit me

[Raa]

i fully expect the hardware to be capable of running next gen titles at 1080p60fps

I sure hope so, or it's not really that "next gen"... :/

[Excelsis]

on a pc, you need a 1.2-1.8gflops gpu to play BF3 at 1080p60fps on ultra like a 650ti or 7850. these are the similar specs for xbox one and ps4.  because of the custom silicon,and the lower level software access, i fully expect the hardware to be capable of running next gen titles at 1080p60fps like BF4, but again, we have to wait and see how balanced the whole system is. developers might not waste their time optimizing if its a painful experience and the sdk sucks. this doesnt mean the hardware isnt capable.

 

The max FPS a 650ti/7850 might be around 60-70, but it will never be a consistent 60FPS. My OC'd 660 can't even stay over 60 on an empty server at ultra, let alone 64 players.

[the evn show]

Removed

[neoadorable]

Shoddy coding by PC master race folks at DICE, sorry EA DICE. Orders to make console versions look bad so EA can sell more on Origin. Also DICE always hated consoles, and dont have much experience with first wave console launches. I already bought BF4 on Origin, agree its more for PC, also getting Ghosts and Watch Dogs on PC. But to claim the consoles can't run these in 1080 is just more PC uber gamer crap.

[neoadorable]

Meanwhile my 24GB,i5,7950 PC can't run friggin The Bureau in 60fps, and that one is a clear console port that looks like it came from 2009. This has nothing to do with hardware. It has everything to do with coding and optimization. Lazy workmanship always trumps resources. You have people on Steam with dual Titans that can't run The Bureau DX11. Ridiculous.

[spaceelf]

Shoddy coding by PC master race folks at DICE, sorry EA DICE. Orders to make console versions look bad so EA can sell more on Origin. Also DICE always hated consoles, and dont have much experience with first wave console launches. I already bought BF4 on Origin, agree its more for PC, also getting Ghosts and Watch Dogs on PC. But to claim the consoles can't run these in 1080 is just more PC uber gamer crap.

paranoid much?  I hear EA makes more on either console than they do on the PC.

http://techreport.com/news/25276/ea-emphasizing-next-gen-consoles-mobile-gaming-ahead-of-the-pc

[neoadorable]

That's what you picked up on? Whatever the case may be, I bought the game for PC. And EA has interests beyond short term profit, driving customers to Origin is a long term investment.

[vcfan]

Meanwhile my 24GB,i5,7950 PC can't run friggin The Bureau in 60fps, and that one is a clear console port that looks like it came from 2009. This has nothing to do with hardware. It has everything to do with coding and optimization. Lazy workmanship always trumps resources. You have people on Steam with dual Titans that can't run The Bureau DX11. Ridiculous.

was it coded in adobe flash?

[neoadorable]

Possibly

[JonnyLH]

Shoddy coding by PC master race folks at DICE, sorry EA DICE. Orders to make console versions look bad so EA can sell more on Origin. Also DICE always hated consoles, and dont have much experience with first wave console launches. I already bought BF4 on Origin, agree its more for PC, also getting Ghosts and Watch Dogs on PC. But to claim the consoles can't run these in 1080 is just more PC uber gamer crap.

I'd like to see you take a year to modify an engine specifically designed around DirectX into an engine that works with a bare minimum OpenGL wrapper. That's why your seeing low-res on the PS4 and 1080p on the X1. 

 

DICE are one of the pioneers in modern engines, I don't even know how people have the cheek to call them lazy.

[neoadorable]

You won't see me do it cause I'm not a software engineer. But in my line of work if one customer got half the output I provide a customer on another platform, id be majorly criticized for it. If DICE are so good, they should have prepared more,its not like OpenGL 4.3 is a mystery. They could have taken the time to do it. Professionals would not succumb to commercial pressure, let me remind you we waited six years between BF2 and BF3. Now that they are no longer autonomous, its only two years. Short of the matter is that both machines can run this game in 1080p easily, and its only because of the devs that this is not the case. Its not like the PS4 version will be cheaper. Plus, are we sure X1 is 1080?

[vcfan]

You won't see me do it cause I'm not a software engineer. But in my line of work if one customer got half the output I provide a customer on another platform, id be majorly criticized for it. If DICE are so good, they should have prepared more,its not like OpenGL 4.3 is a mystery. They could have taken the time to do it. Professionals would not succumb to commercial pressure, let me remind you we waited six years between BF2 and BF3. Now that they are no longer autonomous, its only two years. Short of the matter is that both machines can run this game in 1080p easily, and its only because of the devs that this is not the case. Its not like the PS4 version will be cheaper. Plus, are we sure X1 is 1080?

 

its not so simple as being its "OpenGL and DirectX",because these are specialized consoles, with customized design,and its not such a simple task to get the most out of the hardware,especially if the SDK is bad and doesnt make it easy to use this power. You cant really blame DICE when comments from the guy who was the lead architect of the design of one of these consoles says this (TEH CERN)

 

"It's a supercharged PC architecture, so you can use it as if it were a PC with unified memory," Cerny said. "Much of what we're seeing with the launch titles is that usage; it's very, very quick to get up to speed if that's how you use it. But at the same time, then you're not taking advantage of all the customization that we did in the GPU. I think that really will play into the graphical quality and the level of interaction in the worlds in, say, year three or year four of the console."

 

http://www.polygon.com/2013/8/27/4663442/cerny-ps4-devs-will-get-more-out-of-the-hardware-in-year-three-or-four

[Tha Bloo Monkee]

People obsessing over the resolution as if it's the only factor to a game's graphics makes me laugh.

[JonnyLH]

You won't see me do it cause I'm not a software engineer. But in my line of work if one customer got half the output I provide a customer on another platform, id be majorly criticized for it. If DICE are so good, they should have prepared more,its not like OpenGL 4.3 is a mystery. They could have taken the time to do it. Professionals would not succumb to commercial pressure, let me remind you we waited six years between BF2 and BF3. Now that they are no longer autonomous, its only two years. Short of the matter is that both machines can run this game in 1080p easily, and its only because of the devs that this is not the case. Its not like the PS4 version will be cheaper. Plus, are we sure X1 is 1080?

You said it yourself in the first sentence, you're not a software engineer. Without games development knowledge you have no idea how much of a complex task this is to perform. For example, I've been a software engineer for around 9 years now and I've only recently got into games development in the last two. Even when I looked at code concepts for games, it was a weird and confusing new concept to grasp regarding code. They're extremely difficult to wrap your head around. When code is specifically designed to work with the feature set of a library that is only workable on fixed and closed platforms (eg: DirectX); when they've got to port that over to another similar but not as full featured library which isn't completely implemented and is just basically a wrapper to speak to the hardware, its pretty much casting a tidal wave knock-on effect through the code. I'm not saying it can't be done well, but considering the sheer amount of work they would of had to do in the time they were probably given, it was probably a monstrous task for them to do. 

 

It's not the developers, its the sheer amount of work in the time frame that the publishers specified which has caused them to cut corners when revamping frostbite 4 for the PS4. Heck the developers have no say in what they actually code, it all gets fed down from business requirements which'll span from the publisher and designers.

 

Regarding the X1, we haven't been told otherwise from E3 (Considering all the EA 1080p60fps claims were made about the X1). IGN article specifically mentioned PS4 and so did the tweets around it, that wasn't done for no reason. Considering we've been shown many games which currently run butter smooth at 1080p on the X1, and the Frostbite engine is a DirectX engine running on a fixed platform which has a specially optimised version of DirectX behind it. Why couldn't it?

[Showan]

You said it yourself in the first sentence, you're not a software engineer. Without games development knowledge you have no idea how much of a complex task this is to perform. For example, I've been a software engineer for around 9 years now and I've only recently got into games development in the last two. Even when I looked at code concepts for games, it was a weird and confusing new concept to grasp regarding code. They're extremely difficult to wrap your head around. When code is specifically designed to work with the feature set of a library that is only workable on fixed and closed platforms (eg: DirectX); when they've got to port that over to another similar but not as full featured library which isn't completely implemented and is just basically a wrapper to speak to the hardware, its pretty much casting a tidal wave knock-on effect through the code. I'm not saying it can't be done well, but considering the sheer amount of work they would of had to do in the time they were probably given, it was probably a monstrous task for them to do. 

 

It's not the developers, its the sheer amount of work in the time frame that the publishers specified which has caused them to cut corners when revamping frostbite 4 for the PS4. Heck the developers have no say in what they actually code, it all gets fed down from business requirements which'll span from the publisher and designers.

 

Regarding the X1, we haven't been told otherwise from E3 (Considering all the EA 1080p60fps claims were made about the X1). IGN article specifically mentioned PS4 and so did the tweets around it, that wasn't done for no reason. Considering we've been shown many games which currently run butter smooth at 1080p on the X1, and the Frostbite engine is a DirectX engine running on a fixed platform which has a specially optimised version of DirectX behind it. Why couldn't it?

 

 

 

I may be dead wrong on this.  But, if some of these 3rd party graphical powerhouse games are going to be designed primarily around DirectX, would it be safe to assume that Microsoft is going to benefit from this more?  Or am I way off on this?

 

Well the above only pertains to games that are PC (New DirectX 11) , X1 (New DirectX 11, & PS4 (OpenGL)

 is there software that makes OpenGL and DirectX , "blend"?

 

Of course all Sony's 1st party games will be coded around OpenGL (i would assume)

 

Or does it all depend on the SDK's the developers are given?

[vcfan]

according to IGN, at gamescom, the ps4 version is still not looking good

 

 

 

But what's more concerning is how the game looks.

 

From the moment I sat down, I was surprisingly underwhelmed by the visuals. Instead of the crisp, detailed textures I've encountered this week on the PC version or other titles running on next-gen hardware, Battlefield 4 on PS4 looked soft and muddled. Wall textures looked half-finished, lacking some of the smaller material nuances or 3D variation. Environmental destruction was more extensive than Battlefield 3 and explosions would send larger chunks of buildings into the air, but once again, the particles looked dull. Weapon models looked great at the hip, but as soon as I raised them to look down the iron sights or scopes, imperfections became apparent.

 

 

 

http://ca.ign.com/articles/2013/08/23/gamescom-battlefield-4s-graphics-lacking-on-ps4

[soniqstylz]

http://pixelenemy.com/battlefield-4-on-ps4-comparable-to-medium-settings-on-pc-like-night-day-difference-to-current-gen-version/

 

Battlefield 4 on PS4 comparable to ?Medium? settings on PC, like ?night & day? difference to current-gen version

While we might know a few more details on how the PS4 version of Battlefield 4 will work using the DualShock 4, we sadly still don?t know what the exact resolution the final game will be once it hits next-gen consoles later this year.

 

However, what we do have now is a good comparison point. YouTube video producer Jackfrags was fortunate enough to get some hands-on time with the PS4 version of BF4 at gamescom and he has some rather good news to share.

 

First off, he revealed that what he played was 16 players, infantry only, no vehicles on the Domination game mode. He mentions that 60fps (frames-per-second) was a ?massive? difference compared to current-gen versions; to the point that if you?ve yet to play BF3 on PCs, the contrast is like ?night & day.?

 

Additionally,Jackfrags states that PS3 to PS4 graphics when it comes to Battlefield is ?world?s apart and if he had to make a comparison, it would be ?Medium? settings on PCs.

 

In regards to resolution, he mentions that it you ?can tell? that it wasn?t running in 1080p, but was supposed to be higher than 720p. To date, DICE has yet to speak out on what resolution BF4 will be on next-gen consoles; although he does share that ?lighting and texture? on the PS4 looked ?great.?

 

If you want to hear it for yourself, go check the video out at the 10:50 mark.

 

[trooper11]

Its not unusual for console games to have out-of-standard resolutions thanks to the closed nature of the hardware. 

 

Every dev tries to find the sweet spot between resolution and other graphical fidelity/effects. Sometimes that means its not running at 1920x1080.

 

These consoles can put out 1080p, but there is a finite amount of fidelity that these consoles can support at 1080p, so I'm sure you will see many dial down the res just enough to allow for more fidelity or something like 60 vs 30 fps.

[neoadorable]

sorry for the delayed response. there are some good comments, and yes, it's good to have input from people who know software engineering first hand. I have to fall back on a bunch of "but" here, though. First off, 1080 isn't the be all end all of resolutions. We need to stop thinking of it like that. Stores where I live are selling 4K LEDs for under $3000 from good brands, give it a couple of years and those 55" sets will be $1500. Ditto for PC monitors. And don't forget QHD, or 2560 x 1440 etc. Anyway, those are numbers, but I thought the whole point of this generation was to move forward. I don't think if BF4 on PS4 is not 1080 then EA will let it be 1080 on X1, but who knows, EA and MS seems to be maintaining their buddy buddy thing.

 

I have no doubt both consoles can manage it easily. If KZ4 is 1080 on PS4, then there's no reason BF4 can't be. Yes, I know, first party exclusive with lots of time and resources, third party project on multiple platforms, less time per platform and so on. I understand the reasons. But I am still judging DICE. If this situation is true (it may not be, for all we know the game will run at 1080 on release), they didn't do their job properly to my mind. And reading the IGN report it sounds like more than the resolution is off, smudgy textures and stuff is not nice. I really do suspect a poor porting effort. Expect more from those guys.

[trooper11]

Yeah I doubt that we will see a difference in resolution for multiplatform games on each console.  I don't think that ever happened this gen, but correct me if I'm wrong.

 

It has been frame rate and graphical fidelity/effects that has differed and I expect that to happen again this gen. I get the feeling it might be smaller then this gen though considering they both use the same core hardware.