Support NeoGAF

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So much negativity. Hopefully the game delivers, and all this is just bandwagon dogpiling bullshit mob mentality stuff.... Hoping.

False hopes and broken dreams.

 

[MajorTom]

So much negativity. Hopefully the game delivers, and all this is just bandwagon dogpiling bullshit mob mentality stuff.... Hoping.

Hotwire mode is genuinely fun, the driving doesn't feel great but its fun to be a passenger and shoot other cars passing by. I didn't really understand what i was doing in heist but i only played one round so i don't really have an opinion on it yet. the other mode (can't remember the name right now) is just the same as playing any other battlefield game. I probably won't be getting it at launch but i will once it gets a bit cheaper. It seems like a fun multiplayer game and I'm optimistic about the campaign.

 

[MaddenNFL64]

False hopes and broken dreams.

Ya, i'm setting myself up, but damnit I want this to be good!

 

[McLovin]

720p?! Does that game have crazy visuals or something?

 

[CarbonFire]

Im watching some beta footage maxed out on PC, and i cant tell if its the engine becoming dated, or if its just this game that looks stale as fuck, visually/aesthetically, in its current beta state anyway. I remember being blown away with the first BF3 frostbite gameplay presentation they showed, im not sure that its the engine but maybe not enough time spent on adding more detail to the maps, shit looks sterilized or something..

Hardline is definitely lower fidelity than even some of what we've seen out of BF4. But again, still a cross-gen game, and being developed by a team that's less familiar with the tech than DICE. I wouldn't write it off entirely until we see what DICE has been cooking up for Battlefront.

 

[Jabba]

No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.

That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.

The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.

This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.

As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.

Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.

That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :

I fired up the game hours ago and can concur, the powerlines in game are exactly like the screenshot comparison.

 

[Xater]

Even on PS4 with the higher resolution the game is ugly as sin. The beta actually made me think that BF4 might have looked better in parts.

 

[deeptech]

720p?! Does that game have crazy visuals or something?

no , they're doing 60fps on consoles so it's either ok visuals and 30fps or shitty looking and 60fps.

but it's not like it's impossible for consoles to do both fine looking games and 60fps , they just can't be as big as BF game , lots of people and lots of shit going on at same time.. for the hardware that these consoles carry , it's really not bad at all...

 

[cackhyena]

Even on PS4 with the higher resolution the game is ugly as sin. The beta actually made me think that BF4 might have looked better in parts.

Might have?

 

[MajorTom]

No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.

That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.

The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.

This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.

As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.

Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.

That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :\

Thank you for explaining it more thoroughly than everyone else who quoted me. I fired it up again since making that comment and i can definitely notice the bad looking powerlines (not disputing the look of the textures in that screenshot, they are definitely bad in game) however, they are only really something i notice if i stand still in game and actually look for them. In a game like battlefield i tend not to pay as much attention to the graphics because im too busy trying not to get shot.

 

[The Shogun]

I don't know why so many in here are shocked.

1080p AND 60fps is going to be incredibly rare on these consoles. They simply aren't powerful enough.

 

[Tenebrous]

He's probably referring to the many controversies surrounding the American police force and the militarization of law enforcement lately (ferguson being the most notable example). Some people think it is a bit tasteless to release a game like Hardline at a time like this.

Personally I just consider it a rather unfortunate coincidence, not like EA could know it would become a rather controversial topic when they started development on this.

Ahh, thanks for clearing that up.

 

[HTupolev]

Replied before. It doesn't depend of the technology. It's inherent to half refreshrate images.

If you're using a display with minimal fade between same-frames, there's literally no difference between "60Hz AABBAABB" and "30Hz ABAB." For all practical intents and purposes, it's not "half refresh" in the same way that it would be on a CRT or mildly flickery LCD or whatever.

 

[The Sarcastic Dude]

Any chance the final game will have better resolution/graphics?

 

[RE_Player]

Any chance the final game will have better resolution/graphics?

Resolution is locked. EA has come forward in saying the resolution will be the same as BF4.

 

[MaLDo]

If you're using a display with minimal fade between same-frames, there's literally no difference between "60Hz AABBAABB" and "30Hz ABAB." For all practical intents and purposes, it's not "half refresh" in the same way that it would be on a CRT or mildly flickery LCD or whatever.

The effect is noticeable. I asked a lot of people showing them the same scenario. Everyone saw the problem using

Monitor acer 27" 1200p
Tv samsung 55 F7000
Tv sony W705

Maybe I can't explain the real cause but recording the problem shows a totally different result than seeing directly.

 

[Purest 78]

720p?! Does that game have crazy visuals or something?

No bf4 looks much better imo.

 

[MajorTom]

Any chance the final game will have better resolution/graphics?

I suppose its possible that the assets used may be of a slightly higher quality, mainly the textures. But the actual resolution is apparently going to stay the same.

 

[Captain Tuttle]

Well looks like another game for me to get off of EA Access

 

[jabuseika]

1080P x60fps on the new consoles any day now guys...

Mean while, enjoying 1080pUltra settings at 120fps on PC.

Spoiler

The game doesn't look that impressive.

 

[Purest 78]

I don't know why so many in here are shocked.

1080p AND 60fps is going to be incredibly rare on these consoles. They simply aren't powerful enough.

For me Bf4 looked much better it also had better AA. Bf4 also had destructible environments and Levelolution. Considering these downgrades I would expect more.

 

[BPoole]

This looks worse visually than Bad Company 2 on PC

 

[gogosox82]

Pass. Game still looks like a BF4 mod.

 

[The Shogun]

For me Bf4 looked much better it also had better AA. Bf4 also had destructible environments and Levelolution. Considering these downgrades I would expect more.

Yeah I can understand that. Visually it for sure look like a step down from BF4

I was more commenting on resolution / framerate specifically

 

[Black_Stride]

The Halo 3 campaign absolutely does deliver a mostly solid 60 fps. There are a select few areas that have performance issues (the beach landing stage before heading into the forest as well as the point where you face multiple Scarab crawlers within that compound just to name a couple). Where did you encounter performance issues in the campaign?


I can try to take a look later. This was just a smaller scale piece so I didn't delve too deeply into those aspects as I was mostly concerned with performance and image quality.

Go play the beginning of Mission 8 The Covenant. You can't miss it. It stutters once you gain control.

You do realize the stage he just described with the beach landing is The Covenant?
And the original article actually mentions that the area has some performance issues?

So at what point in the article counting that they mention the stuttering you experienced did they fail?
Its one 5 or so minute area of essentially the whole campaign.



On Topic
Probably get this on PC was thinking about getting it on XB1 because of my friendslist.....but man i dont know if i can stomach that IQ at this point this far into the generation.
Heres to hoping they can pull some magic off and improve IQ before launch.

 

[IbizaPocholo]

720p again in the xbox one but im going to buy the game because for me is fun.

 

[Later Alligator]

1080P x60fps on the new consoles any day now guys...

Mean while, enjoying 1080pUltra settings at 120fps on PC.

Spoiler

The game doesn't look that impressive.

.... ok?

 

[travisbickle]

1080P x60fps on the new consoles any day now guys...

Yep, not long till MGS5's release.

 

[W.S.]

The only thing that interests me is the cool looking episodic cop campaign but the really underwhelming graphics still bring that down regardless.

 

[PeskyToaster]

Aren't BF betas always kinda shitty looking?

 

[Bolts-n-Rays1109]

Just sounds like lazy devs trying to cash in on a big name franchise. Embarrassing...

 

[StevieP]

Just sounds like lazy devs trying to cash in on a big name franchise. Embarrassing...

Yeah it's lazy devs. Not a large scope game being squeezed onto anemic hardware or anything, like bf4.

 

[JordanN]

Wow, what a mess. How long do these consoles have to go? Till 2017? Longer? Was this the first console generation which was underpowered by that much? I know most were outdated pretty fast, but with that gen it feels like they were never...on date.

It's your mistake if you think multiplatform games tax the hardware. First party games will always look better on the same platform.

 

[lifeexpectancy]

Annualized franchises need to die. Full stop.

So... 1.5 years after console launch, full suite of development tools throughout the process, final hardware to work on for 2+ years, no rush to hit launch, a 6 month delay and SDK improvements abound for both consoles..

and they manage to release a less visually impressive game at the same IQ settings for both consoles.

Way to go guys, way to go.

:slow golf clap:

I think we're done here.

homersimpsonintobushes.gif

 

[SonicBoom]

Played the beta on PS4 and I was really enjoying it. Felt solid.

Can't believe how much people cry about graphics, for me its all about gameplay and its fun.

I hope this game sell well.

GAMEPLAY >>>>>>>>> > GRAPHICS


Cuz haters will hate.

 

[RoboPlato]

Yeah it's lazy devs. Not a large scope game being squeezed onto anemic hardware or anything, like bf4.

While I am very much opposed to the "lazy devs" argument, the main issue with this game's visuals isn't a hardware issue. The issue is that no matter what platform you're on, this game looks worse than the last game in the series on the same engine and it has less going on.

 

[cackhyena]

Yeah it's lazy devs. Not a large scope game being squeezed onto anemic hardware or anything, like bf4.

Wow, really? Like BF4, what exactly?

 

[SapientWolf]

No, it's not bullshit. That's a direct feed screenshot.

That said, what you're getting at without actually realizing it is the factor of view distance and display type.

The type of display you use combined with the distance from which you sit can increase or decrease your perception of visual artifacts. I can admit that, from my normal viewing distance on a good plasma, the game looks better than those screenshots suggest. That has no bearing on what the system is actually outputting.

This is why image quality tends to be more important on the PC front - most people play PC games in front of an LCD monitor. Sitting that close to an LCD display is the most difficult of situations for managing good image quality, I've found. You need better anti-aliasing and higher resolutions to compensate for the viewing distance and display type.

As a reverse example try playing a game on a nice CRT PC monitor. You'll find that higher resolutions suddenly become less useful due to the nature of the display. 1024x768 with 4x MSAA on a CRT looks absolutely super smooth and clean. It's really quite striking, really, just how different it looks.

Still, when analyzing the visual output of a game one must place all platforms on a level playing field. Analyzing output from a system on a monitor against PC output is the only way to understand how they compare.

That said, in the case of BFH, the shimmering and sub-pixel artifacts visible on thin objects are bad to the point that you'd have to stand a good 20 feet away not to be bothered by them. :\

I agree, and I would also add that games look smoother at a smaller viewing distance as well, which is why 120fps is such a big deal on the PC, and for VR. IQ is a huge factor when you have so much screen in your face.

 

[mjontrix]

I play on pc. Your framerate/resolution distinction is only damage control about what you're used to. A 30 fps game will look juddery with the double image visual glitch no matter the refreshrate of the tv.

Is this the real Maldo? The awesome modder?

and yes - 30 fps on 60hz will judder - how much will depend on what you're used to.

The game is quite blurry on consoles, but it shouldn't really especially since like mentioned in the first post they had so much time to work on it.

I'd point to the frostbite engine as a possible reason for this, but unless we have an insider who could give you a few hints we won't know for sure.

CRT is different - the image production method gives 'clarity' to low resolution even on larger screens.

 

[coastel]

While I am very much opposed to the "lasy devs" argument, the main issue with this game's visuals isn't a hardware issue. The issue is that no matter what platform you're on, this game looks worse than the last game in the series on the same engine and it has less going on.

Yea this get's me to the game look's shit on every platform yet you have the usual console head hunter's blaming hardware.

From what I played the game look's worse than bf4 and is doing less so how the fuck can it look so bad. Bf4 was a good looking game on console minus the smear effect on the screen from the shit AA I guess.

How this game manages to have shittier graphics and IQ than bf4 I will never know. But saying it's the hardware's fault is bollocks and something the same PCgaf always try to push.

 

[alexandros]

Annualized franchises need to die.

People keep buying them though. They are not going to die as long as they sell.

But saying it's the hardware's fault is bollocks and something the same PCgaf always try to push.

Depending on your point of view, it's the hardware's or the developer's fault. It's possible I suppose that the developers could have made the game to run at 1080p/60 on both platforms if they were willing to cut things like effects, map size, player count and so on. Would people accept a console version of Hardline that is significantly gimped compared to the PC one but ran at 60 fps and 1080P? Maybe. But it's not our call, it's the developer's call when developing a game for a specific hardware configuration. I believe they made the right call as the general audience doesn't seem to be that good at discerning resolution differences.

Frostbite 3 is a visually impressive, versatile, lightweight and scalable engine. Visceral is an experienced studio. How do we reach the conclusion that the game is unoptimized? I find this "optimization" debate to be quite toxic and rather insulting to the developers who make these games. Developers can't make low-end console hardware magically perform better than it normally does? "Unoptimized piece of crap". Developers add visual effects and options that go well beyond the console ones but the game can't run maxed at 60 fps? "Unoptimized piece of crap". It is extremely frustrating. But then I guess everything is a 'narrative' these days.

 

[Dragonborn]

So are we expecting Battlefront to follow this pattern?

 

[coastel]

People keep buying them though. They are not going to die as long as they sell.



Depending on your point of view, it's the hardware's or the developer's fault. It's possible I suppose that the developers could have made the game to run at 1080p/60 on both platforms if they were willing to cut things like effects, map size, player count and so on. Would people accept a console version of Hardline that is significantly gimped compared to the PC one but ran at 60 fps and 1080P? Maybe. But it's not our call, it's the developer's call when developing a game for a specific hardware configuration. I believe they made the right call as the general audience doesn't seem to be that good at discerning resolution differences.

Frostbite 3 is a visually impressive, versatile, lightweight and scalable engine. Visceral is an experienced studio. How do we reach the conclusion that the game is unoptimized? I find this "optimization" debate to be quite toxic and rather insulting to the developers who make these games. Developers can't make low-end console hardware magically perform better than it normally does? "Unoptimized piece of crap". Developers add visual effects and options that go well beyond the console ones but the game can't run maxed at 60 fps? "Unoptimized piece of crap". It is extremely frustrating. But then I guess everything is a 'narrative' these days.

Compared to bf4 though it's a mess and 900p. The consoles being low end is opinion but they certainly are not high end. Also maybe they just didn't have the time they wanted. I'm OK with the 900p trade off due to the hardware for this type/scale of game and running 60fps but I'm not OK with how bad it look's especially that it's doing less than bf4. I blame the amount of time they have as the hardware can produce better results.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

People really need to stop with that "lazy devs" shit. Fine, you aren't impressed with the graphics(they aren't impressive, but the framerate is mostly smooth) but you really think the developers haven't put a ton of work and man-hours into this? Come on now, that's an obnoxious criticism.

also, I've enjoyed PLAYING the game.and I haven't particularly enjoyed Battlefield for some time now. So there's that. I still don't know if I'll pick it though, at launch anyways.

Compared to bf4 though it's a mess and 900p. The consoles being low end is opinion but they certainly are not high end. Also maybe they just didn't have the time they wanted. I'm OK with the 900p trade off due to the hardware for this type/scale of game and running 60fps but I'm not OK with how bad it look's especially that it's doing less than bf4. I blame the amount of time they have as the hardware can produce better results.

Yeah, BF4 looks better(and no doubt had a bigger budget and more time, as you say) but the framerate on consoles can also go to complete shit at a moments notice in 64p Conquest.

 

[Doctor_Thomas]

I gave it a go on PS4 and it's just bland. The resolution aside, it just doesn't look that good. Kind of sterile? The power lines though.... ugh.

 

[Storm Raider]

What is its competition? What other can provide better visuals and more expansive environments with that many players and destructibility at 60 fps?

There's nothing really destructible in this game besides doors in buildings maybe?

 

[nib95]

I know some people will vehemently disagree, but like Planetside 2 or Destiny, I think the devs should have just opted for a locked 30fps with greatly improved visuals and IQ. Concentrate on getting the input response quicker by other means, but blow out the visuals at a locked 30fps. I really don't think this game even needs 60fps, especially when the cost to overall visuals is so grave. Things like the textures, aliasing etc are just so distracting. Then again this is just a BETA, no idea how the final game will fare.

 

[cjp]

People really need to stop with that "lazy devs" shit. Fine, you aren't impressed with the graphics(they aren't impressive, but the framerate is mostly smooth) but you really think the developers haven't put a ton of work and man-hours into this? Come on now, that's an obnoxious criticism.

Why is that an obnoxious criticism? If no one can seem to tell that the developers have put "a ton of work and man-hours into this" then that criticism is perfectly valid.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

Why is that an obnoxious criticism? If no one can seem to tell that the developers have put "a ton of work and man-hours into this" then that criticism is perfectly valid.

I'd say the argument that yes, a lot of work and time went into this is far more valuable than pulling "lazy" out of your ass. You're shitting on the developers, calling them lazy because you don't like the graphics, not because you have any insight whatsoever into the development of this game(or the budget, or the time restraints, etc), and how hard and arduous a process getting it to this point no doubt was(because that's game development). It's not an easy thing.

 

[ShamePain]

I'm gonna laugh and cry at the same time if SW BF and ME2 are 720p/900p too.