this engine can't seem to do 1080/60 fps on consoles. DA:I was 1080/30 and both BF games have been under on the resolution. At the end of the day tho, think about everything BF is doing in a multiplayer environment. 64 players, destruction, huge maps, etc. More importantly its fun (which of course, if you disagree is a good reason to say you're not interested, but I'm strictly speaking to the people that would be considering purchasing the game otherwise). I think its time some of you people face the fact that your console has its limitations. I would advise that you play the game. If you think its fun, make your considerations off of that and not some number that they didn't hit. If these numbers are that important to you then maybe you need a PC.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
DF: Battlefield Hardline Beta Performance Analysis 720p X1, 900p PS4, Framerate issue
- Thread starter nynt9
- Start date
Well, let's be fair here, those 1080p PC shots were taken at settings that regular 1080p with their post AA wouldn't deliver. That's using 4x MSAA + post AA + 125% resolution scaling. That setting is completely playable on my setup. Going higher than that winds up filling VRAM and killing frame-rate.
Also, 900p can look much better than we have here. Take Ryse, for instance, with its SMAA-T1x. It looks extremely clean for a sub-native resolution. They're simply using bad AA here along with assets that are difficult.
TacticalFox88
Banned
At this point, I"m expecting the same from Star Wars this year, unless they prove me wrong.
What an embarrassment.
What an embarrassment.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
Battlefront is later this year and it's basically Star Wars Battlefield.
Which of course no one will whine about it being just a Star Wars expansion pack for BF4 because they're ok with that
alexandros
Banned
I've personally been a part of many discussions in graphics comparison articles during the tail end of the previous console generation and there were many people that considered the difference between sub-hd sub-30fps console versions and 1080p 60fps PC versions relatively minor because, and I quote, "it's still basically the same game". Compared to that the 900p to 1080p difference really is minor. The average gamer doesn't seem to have a keen eye for these things.
I didn't want Battlefield : Militarized Police anyways...900p in BF4 was very blurry cause of their super agressive FXAA solution, but 720p was even worse. I'd skip it if i was a console or PC owner
I wish they would prioritize AA a little more, atleast with SMAA solutions the IQ isnt quite as defeated
I wish they would prioritize AA a little more, atleast with SMAA solutions the IQ isnt quite as defeated
GameSeeker
Member
Exactly. Over a year later and EA still has Frostbite 3 running poorly on current gen consoles.
Well, they did add screen space reflections. Too bad the aliasing is bad -- dem powerlines -- oof. 1080p would have cleaned it up some but some better AA is needed. Frame-rate wise, it runs at 60fps more consistently than BF4.
BF4 just looks better overall: better textures, better lighting, better fire, better smoke, better destruction.
DAI is 1080p with a solid 30fps on PS4. And for what BF4 is doing, 900p/60fps is pretty good.
BF4 just looks better overall: better textures, better lighting, better fire, better smoke, better destruction.
DAI is 1080p with a solid 30fps on PS4. And for what BF4 is doing, 900p/60fps is pretty good.
aygomyownroad
Member
Never played battlefield 4 but liked the look of this.
As someone with an xbox one I am very disappointed with 720p. I understand it's a difficult console to work with but I expect 900p minimum by now.
Poorly optimised. I hope it comes out and has a patch
As someone with an xbox one I am very disappointed with 720p. I understand it's a difficult console to work with but I expect 900p minimum by now.
Poorly optimised. I hope it comes out and has a patch
shinobi602
Member
Tell us more about the game.
Ol No Bones
Banned
The game plays and looks bad. I don't know what else to say about it. I'm not sure why anyone would buy it. I'm crossing my fingers about battlefront.
Well, in this case, they're using a poor implementation of AA, I feel. It simply doesn't work well here and the game winds up looking blurry yet aliased. It's not pretty.It's weird most people seem to be happy with 1080p 30fps but when it's 900p 60 fps all the toys start getting thrown out of the pram, just my observation
It's so much worse on Xbox One at 720p, though.
Freedom = $1.05
Banned
Given the 2 year turn around from BF4 to Battlefront and that some of that time DICE spent trying to finish the clearly-borked-at-launch BF4, well, are we really going to sit here and imagine that they're going to reinvent the wheel for Battlefront or just do enough for it to kinda sorta stand on its own, like Hardline is doing now?
Samurai G0SU
Member
They actually left and created Sledgehammer studios, the guys who made COD:AW. Visceral stayed alive with new people that most likely didn't touch deadspace 1.
OP: This is something i never thought i'd see happen on an engine that did not improve along side with SDK updates on both platforms. Wow... it sounds like a big mess over there and this game is showing it to me. Delayed for what? To meet the optimization of bf4? WTF? -___- Why bother when bf4 has been patched to hell?
They might as well just add the MP as a DLC pack for bf4 and the single player a tv show. lol jk im jus hatin' now.
Ol No Bones
Banned
I'm less upset about the res and frame rate and more upset about how it looks and plays. It isn't Nice visually regardless of resolution.It's weird most people seem to be happy with 1080p 30fps but when it's 900p 60 fps all the toys start getting thrown out of the pram, just my observation
I'm going to have to agree with him, honestly. I don't see DICE doing Battlefront justice at all.
I'm fine with 900p 30 fps even depending on the genre. 720p is pretty poor though and it's startling that they couldn't bump the resolution up to 900p (or fake 1080p) on the Xbox One, and bump it up to 1080p on the PS4.It's weird most people seem to be happy with 1080p 30fps but when it's 900p 60 fps all the toys start getting thrown out of the pram, just my observation
MaximusPayne
Member
Should have stuck with a new gen Dead Space
Broadbandito
Member
the 2 heads of the studio left after DS1.
It's weird most people seem to be happy with 1080p 30fps but when it's 900p 60 fps all the toys start getting thrown out of the pram, just my observation
Everything seems downgraded compared to bf4, so that's why I question this. If I had saw improvements I'd have no issues with this.
Same here. I have a feeling it's just going to seem like a reskin for bf4.
Schweinehund
Member
I don't think 1080p/60 fps is feasible without severe hit to IQ. I can't really say I would expect anything better from any other dev studio with the hardware they're given.
funkystudent
Member
60fps does help a lot but I would have the engine advanced more from BF4.
Or you know..... had better texture filtering because I bet that would make it look a heck of a lot better
Or you know..... had better texture filtering because I bet that would make it look a heck of a lot better
Woo-Fu
Banned
A boring game with one mode and one map. The delay was about adding a lot more than just performance optimization.
There is a lot more there now. Still feels like an expansion pack with delusions of standalone viability, though.
No it's not... wtf... BF4 looks like 1080p to me.
alexandros
Banned
Instead of reaching straight for the "lazy devs" excuse, we could at least consider the possibility that the actual hardware isn't up to the task.
Seriously. Also, in regards to the PS4, I'm not sure why they haven't used one of those resolutions with 1080 vertical pixels and x amount of horizontal pixels, scales WAY better than 1600*900.
With a weighty game like BF, i'd honestly prefer a 30fps lock with better IQ than a blurry mess with uneven 60fps.
Maybe i just got too used to playing BF on 7th gen consoles...but BF to me has never been a twitch shooter worth 60fps trade offs.
Maybe i just got too used to playing BF on 7th gen consoles...but BF to me has never been a twitch shooter worth 60fps trade offs.
Yea it's disgusting on ps4 to the point where I found it very distracting. I also doubt it will be improved much if at all by launch.
Samurai G0SU
Member
I thought they also took some people with them. I think they talked about it during some of those videos that showed off COD:AW. They always referenced DS1.
But it did improve ,the framerate is better as it barely ever held 60 in bf4 on consoles
Terbinator
Member
Aren't the UI elements rendered at 1080p on XB1 in this?
Yeah. I didnt like DS2/3 as much as the first. Didnt feel the same.
Portugeezer
Member
It's pretty much an expansion to BF4, I didn't expect much improvement.
I'm not sure what everyone was expecting but lets just put some logic behind this whole thing. You basically give a studio an engine that they've never worked with before, that at the time they received it was broken (obviously development started on this before BF4 came out, and when it did release, well you all know how broken it was), had never hit 1080/60 on consoles, give them maybe 2 years to learn the engine (even tho dice themselves haven't fully figured it out after many years), fix the problems with it, make a full game on it, and try and turn around the perception that is now associated with the BF franchise. Viseral was dealt a shitty hand and IMO they made lemonade.
The thing is, many ppl (like me) want just Battlefield with Star Wars stuff.