Psychoward
Banned
Looks alright, but I don't really care about the graphics, show me the giant maps/levels, BC2 levels of destruction or better, 1080p/60 fps and 64 players on consoles.
Thanks for the answers guys...Yes I agree, that fire explosion does look a lot better, kind of reminds me of KZ4 explosion effect.
I think it probably looks much better in motion. Less than 6 hours to go . I hope it looks this good on PS4
Crysis 3 on consoles VS Battlefield 4 on consoles
Might the prettiest win
Both.Let me throw this nugget into the equation. DICE says:
"You can have greatly enhanced destruction and more detailed maps at 30 FPS or you can have reduced destruction and less detailed maps at 60 FPS"
Which do you chose?
KZSF already wins since it's not shackled to 2005 level hardware.
So those who have beefed up PCs and have played BF3 on high (or ultra) settings, do these look any better? From what I can see there is nothing "new" or "special" about these screens in terms of tech that hasn't been on PC. Yeah having this on PS4/nextbox would be a big jump. Obviously if these really are legit pics for comparison.
But 60fps looks so good! On console, if you went from COD MP 60fps to BF3 multiplayer after about two matches of COD, BF3 would look very choppy and just look bad until you got used to the 30fps. I know a few friends who have noticed the same thing so I know it is not just me. If most games are 60fps on the PS4 and there are the odd bunch of 30fps. People will notice the difference more often and will only want 60fps. Before HD caught on many people were like "Why do I need this?" "It does not look much better to me for more money." but now many people cannot stand SD because they are used to HD now. Same goes for VHS to DVD. VHS looked just fine for many people but if you went back to watch a VHS after DVD you noticed an insane difference in quality. Now we all can easily tell VHS apart because many of us are used to the higher quality format all of the time. Some people did not need to go from one format to the other to notice a difference and those are the people that wanted the clearer betamax over VHS.Am I the only one who could care less if its 60 FPS???
AM I?
Give me 30 FPS and superior visuals...
Games can be 1080p @60fps on the PS4 if devs do not over do the graphical effects.Me too but other 8 years of 720p no thanks.
Then i rather have 1080p@30fps sharp IQ then blurred up 720p@60fps enlarged.
They should apply NFS:something(or some other title) that had a response time of 87ms.
Best would of course be 1080p@60fps. I still have a gaming rig that needs some new parts so i will wait for haswell and new gen gpu and decide then when bf4 requirements are out.
The character models could still use some work in KZSF though. Very rough. The Helghast looks good however.
"BC2 levels of destruction or better, 1080p/60 fps and 64 players on consoles".
I'm thinking they'll stick with 720p/30fps.
Whens the trailer coming out? It's already 27th here in Aus.
Official Battlefield Facebook account just posted one of the screenshots.
Guess they're official then
Are those supposed to look good? Because all I can see is that guy's completely fucked up face. That shit is all kinds of ugly.
To me the difference is huge.
If COD was 30fps it wouldn't have ever been as popular as it was.
You're saying the game doesn't look graphically good from the pictures?
I don't believe that AT ALL. It's a silly myth.
You're saying the game doesn't look graphically good from the pictures?
...seriously? Look at the detail in the uniforms.I guess the scenery in the third picture looks pretty good, but, uhhh, yeah. The characters themselves look like shit.
COD would suck royally with 30fps and input lag.
The arcade like response time would be gone.
I guess the scenery in the third picture looks pretty good, but, uhhh, yeah. The characters themselves look like shit.
But if the series never debuted at 60 FPS and was 30 FPS from the get go, would it still be as popular? What if they never strived for that low input lag?
...seriously? Look at the detail in the uniforms.
Huh, interesting. They're insanely detailed IMO.
These shots look great. But BF3 looks great too and I can see how this isn't a jump from BF3.
Let's not forget TR when comparing these shots. For now, it's the only game that has competed with C3 in next-gen quality. I'll be anxiously awaiting the BF4 trailer. And I want PS4 footage. We already know what the PC can do.
-M
...seriously? Look at the detail in the uniforms.
Is it just me or do the faces look weird?
But their faces.
COD would suck royally with 30fps and input lag.
The arcade like response time would be gone.
Look at all those birds. You would never get than many birds on the current generation of consoles.
But their faces.
I agree. It's built primarily for PS360, I don't think it'll look as impressive as KZ:SF for that reason.
Let me throw this nugget into the equation. DICE says:
"You can have greatly enhanced destruction and more detailed maps at 30 FPS or you can have reduced destruction and less detailed maps at 60 FPS"
Which do you chose?
Lots of birds=Next Gen?
Nope.Maybe, maybe not.
But I still believe MOSTpeople who like COD would still like COD at 30fps for the type of game it is rather than dislike it due to not being 60fps. It just so happens COD is popular and is 60fps so I think it's a silly myth people came up with. When Halo was top dog people talked about the gameplay and the universe people loved, with COD I just hear "60fps" all the time.
COD would still be about stupid killstreaks, easy kills, class customisation, unbalanced crazy crap, and the COD fans would still love that (and this is ignoring what 30fps might allow them to add gameplay wise... IDK destruction, maybe they would like that).